The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) in favour of a State employee who was denied benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (“MACP Scheme”) solely because his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) could not be located. The Division Bench comprising Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Bipin Gupta held that it is the responsibility of the employer to maintain such performance records; the employee has no control over their availability. Consequently, the employer cannot deny the entitlement simply because the records are unavailable. The Court emphasized that the duty to maintain APARs is the bounden obligation of the employer, and non-availability of APARs cannot be attributed to the employee.
In the case at hand, the employee was appointed as an Assistant with the Sports Authority of India in 1987, and after approximately twenty years of regular service he became eligible for benefits under the MACP Scheme. However, he was denied the second financial up-gradation under the Scheme on the ground that his performance records for the relevant period were not on file. He challenged this denial before the CAT, which observed that under the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the employer is tasked with maintaining ACRs/APARs. The Tribunal found that since the employee’s eligibility criteria under the Scheme were satisfied, the employer’s failure to maintain records could not deprive him of the benefit. Accordingly, the CAT directed that the benefit be granted.
The State authority challenged the CAT’s order before the High Court. The Court rejected the State’s contention that absence of APARs justified refusal of the benefit. It held that the absence of records was entirely attributable to the employer’s administrative lapse, and therefore, it was impermissible to penalize the employee by denying the benefit. The Court observed that the MACP Scheme’s objective is to prevent stagnation in service and provide financial up-gradation to eligible employees, and when eligibility is otherwise established, the Scheme’s benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld. The Court thus dismissed the State’s petition and affirmed the CAT’s direction.
In its reasoning, the Court underscored that once an employee fulfills the requisite years of service under the Scheme, entitlement to up-gradation arises, and that entitlement cannot be defeated on the ground of procedural non-availability of performance records when such non-availability is within the control of the employer. The Court further clarified that the MACP Scheme is founded on the premise of relief in case of service stagnation and deployment of the employer’s processes must not become a hurdle in lawful up-gradation. By confirming that the employer cannot derive advantage from its own default, the Court reinforced the principle of fairness in service-law administration.
Accordingly, the State employee is entitled to the second financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme despite the missing ACRs/APARs, because the record-keeping lapse resides with the employer and not with the employee. The Court’s decision thereby affirms that administrative incapacity of the employer cannot operate to deny a statutory or scheme-based benefit to a deserving employee whose eligibility is otherwise established.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.