Prem chnadra vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

1

(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

Original Application No. 976 of 2026

st
This the 01 Day of September, 2026.

HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.

Prem Chnadra, aged about 59 years, Son of Late Gayaram,
presently posted as Chief Health Inspector, North Eastern
Railway, Kashipur, Resident of 64A, Vatika, Suncity Vistar,

Bareilly.
….Applicant .


By Advocate: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit.

Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Izzatnagar Division, Izzatnagar, Bareilly.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway,
Izzatnagar Division, Izzatnagar, Bareilly.

... Respondents.
By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar.
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents, are present and heard.
2. The instant Original Application has been filed seeking
the following reliefs: -
“(i) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
rd
respondents to allow benefit of 3 MACP in GP of
Rs. 5400/- to the applicant on completion of 30
Shakuntala Singh

2

years of service in the department since 28.11.2025
with all consequential benefits and admissible
interest thereupon.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour
of the applicant.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was
initially appointed under the respondents to the post of
Health Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with Grade
Pay of Rs. 4200/- on 28.11.1995 and was subsequently
promoted to the post of Food Inspector vide order dated
10.09.1999. The applicant is presently posted as Chief Health
Inspector. Having completed 30 years of service on
28.11.2025, the applicant claimed the benefit of 3rd Modified
Assured Career Progression (MACP) in the Grade Pay of Rs.
5400/-. However, his claim was not accepted on the ground
that his APAR was not “very good”. The applicant states that
while his APAR for the year 2024-25 was assessed as “very
good” by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, the
Accepting Officer downgraded the same to “good” without
any prior notice or warning. The applicant preferred an
appeal dated 17.10.2025 against the said grading, which was
considered by the competent authority on 04.05.2026;
however, the final grading was retained as “good” without
recording any specific reasons for such downgrading. The
applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated
25.05.2026 seeking the benefit of 3rd MACP, which is
pending consideration. The applicant has, therefore,
approached this Tribunal seeking the benefit of 3rd MACP
with consequential benefits.
Shakuntala Singh

3

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant has an unblemished service record of more than 30
years and has never received any warning, charge-sheet or
faced any departmental inquiry during his service career
and that his APARs had consistently been assessed as “very
good”. He further submitted that the APAR for the year 2024-
25 was assessed as “very good” by the Reporting and
Reviewing Officers, but the Accepting Officer downgraded
the same to “good” without any prior notice or warning. He
further submitted that no adverse remarks had been
recorded by the Reporting or Reviewing Officers and, rather,
the Reporting Officer had recorded “Beyond Doubt” in
respect of integrity and “VERY GOOD” in respect of the
special attributes mentioned in the APAR. Learned counsel
further submitted that the downgrading of the APAR was not
supported by specific reasons and was contrary to the
applicable instructions relating to recording and
communication of adverse remarks. He also submitted that
the applicant has already submitted a representation dated
25.05.2026 before the Respondent No. 3/Competent
Authority, which is pending consideration.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction
is issued to the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority to
consider and decide the said representation, by passing a
reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
has no objection if a direction is issued to the Respondent No.
3/Competent Authority to consider and decide the pending
Shakuntala Singh

4

representation of the applicant dated 25.05.2026, in
accordance with law, within a stipulated period.
7. In view of the fair submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of
the case, the instant Original Application is disposed of with a
direction to the Respondent No. 3/Competent Authority to
consider and decide the pending representation of the
applicant dated 25.05.2026, after perusal of the relevant
APAR entry as well as the applicable MACP scheme, in
accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking
order, preferably within a period of 08 weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into
the merits of the case.
9. Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed
of at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
10. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.


( Manju Pandey ) ( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (A) Member (J)



/Shakuntala/


Shakuntala Singh