Sunil Mittal vs M/o Railways

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

9/2/26, 11:41 AM cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=77656
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR
Order Sheet
Item no.:   22
O.A./87/2018 (JAIPUR)
[ APAR ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 38
Order Dated: 17/08/2026
SUNIL MITTAL
Vs
M/O RAILWAYS
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Amit Mathur
For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Lalit Mohan Bhardwaj
  Notes of The Registry     Order of The Tribunal
 
The applicant has challenged the grading
awarded to him in the APAR of the year 2011-
2012 by filing the present Original Application
in the year 2018.  The challenge is mainly on
two grounds, firstly, that on earlier occasions,
he had been graded as 'Very Good' or
'Outstanding', whereas, for the year 2011-
2012, he was graded 'Average'; and secondly,
that the primary reason for challenging the
said grading in his APAR for the year 2011-
2012 is the amendment of the rules in the year
2015, whereby a grading of 'Very Good' in
each of the preceding five years was made
necessary for grant of Non-Functional
Upgradation (NFU) and for regular promotion.
2. The applicant had also submitted a
representation in December, 2016, which was
rejected by the respondents vide order dated
27.12.2016 (Annexure A-2).  It is the stand of
the respondents that the APAR for the year
2011-2012 had been communicated to the
applicant on 26.11.2012 (Annexure R-1) itself,
but the applicant did not agitate the same
within the stipulated period and, thus,
accepted the assessment.  It was only in
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
KHUSHBOO c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, E= [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA
Reason: I am the author of this document
MITTAL GUPTA Date: 2026.09.03 13:59:48+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
1/4

9/2/26, 11:41 AM cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=77656
December, 2016 after a lapse of more than
four years, that the applicant, for the first time,
challenged the said grading by submitting a
representation, which was duly considered and
rejected by the respondents.
3. We have heard both the learned counsels
for the parties and carefully examined the
pleadings, documents and materials available
on record.
4. The cause of action, insofar as the grading
in the APAR for the year 2011-2012 is
concerned, arose on 26.11.2012, when the
APAR was communicated to the applicant. 
The said communication specifically provided
an opportunity to the applicant to submit a
representation within fifteen days. It was also
clearly mentioned therein that, in case no
representation was submitted within the
stipulated period, it would be deemed that the
applicant had no representation to make and
the APAR would be treated as final.
5. We do not find any infirmity in the reasoning
given by the respondents in the impugned
order dated 27.12.2016 while deciding the
representation of the applicant.  An APAR
cannot be kept perpetually open.  An
employee has no vested right to challenge the
same at any time according to his
convenience.  The reasoning advanced by the
applicant that the need to challenge the
"Average" grading in his APAR for the year
2011-2012 arose only after the amendment of
the rules by the respondents in the year 2015,
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
KHUSHBOO c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, E= [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA
Reason: I am the author of this document
MITTAL GUPTA Date: 2026.09.03 13:59:48+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2/4

9/2/26, 11:41 AM cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=77656
which affected the grant of Non-Functional
Upgradation, cannot be accepted.
6.  An APAR is an assessment of an employee
for a particular period.  If the employee does
not challenge or agitate the assessment within
the stipulated period, he is deemed to have
accepted the same.  Thus, in our considered
view, having accepted his assessment for the
relevant period and having failed to challenge
the same within the stipulated time of fifteen
days in the year 2012, it was not open to the
applicant to challenge the said grading almost
six years thereafter by filing the present OA in
the year 2018.  
7. The applicant has further contended that,
under the old rules applicable for grant of NFU,
he had already secured the requisite 20 marks
by the year 2011–2012 and, therefore, he had
no reason to challenge the APAR for that year
at that stage. However, the applicant has not
been able to establish the basis on which he
had concluded that he had secured the
requisite 20 marks by the year 2011–2012. 
The grading for the reporting year 2009-2010
has not been reported by the applicant, that
too when the relevant period for which the
evaluation was to be made for considering in
NFU on 01.01.2015 as cut-off date would be
for five years from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014.
8. Even assuming, for the sake of argument,
that the applicant had secured the requisite 20
marks by the year 2011-2012, it is difficult to
understand how he could have concluded in
advance what his APAR grading would be for
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
KHUSHBOO c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, E= [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA
Reason: I am the author of this document
MITTAL GUPTA Date: 2026.09.03 13:59:48+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
3/4

9/2/26, 11:41 AM cis.cgat.gov.in/catlive/internal/order_content_view.php?no=77656
the subsequent years 2012-2013 and 2013-
2014.  These years were also required to be
taken into consideration up to the relevant cut-
off date of 01.01.2015 for the purpose of
calculation of marks for NFU under the old
rules. 
9.    Even if it is assumed that the amended
rules were not enacted and the applicant
continued to be governed by the old rules, the
contention that he had no reason to challenge
the “Average” grading in the APAR for the year
2011–2012 does not merit acceptance. The
subsequent APAR gradings and the marks to
be reckoned as on the relevant cut-off date
could not have been known to the applicant in
advance. The explanation offered by the
applicant is, therefore, not convincing and
does not justify the delay of several years in
challenging the APAR.  The entire narrative
advanced by the applicant is, therefore,
fallacious and an afterthought that cannot be
accepted.
10.  In view of the above discussion, we find
no merit in the present OA. The same is
accordingly dismissed . There shall be no
order as to costs.
11.  Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
   LOK RANJAN
   MEMBER (A)
RANJANA SHAHI
MEMBER (J)
Khushboo Mittal Gupta
( steno 'c' )
 
Case No O.A./87/2018 Jaipur Bench
List In: Main causelist             Item No. 22
Generated by Khushboo Mittal CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench on 31/08/2026
 
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=central administrative tribunal, PostalCode=302001, L=Jaipur, S=Rajasthan, STREET="Sahakar Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan", OID.2.5.4.65=f9c6978f22a7c6d, Phone=
KHUSHBOO c9127d0032386c6ff6f2dc108496f05e732619225ac1f8243ae98c53d99f7ec4, SERIALNUMBER=
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, E= [email protected], CN=KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA
Reason: I am the author of this document
MITTAL GUPTA Date: 2026.09.03 13:59:48+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
4/4