An employee denied MACP for a below-benchmark APAR must first seek its upgradation from the competent authority.

The applicant, a retired Office Superintendent of Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, retired on 31.01.2024.

He had been granted the second financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme with effect from 20.03.2009 and claimed entitlement to the third MACP with effect from 20.03.2019.

His claim for the third MACP was rejected on the ground that he had been found unsuitable because his APAR grading fell short of the prescribed benchmark under Railway Board Establishment Circular No. 155/2016.

Although the relevant office order was dated 01.04.2019, it was communicated to him only on 08.10.2024, after his retirement.

The respondents did not appear before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction granting him the third financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 20.03.2019 by disregarding the alleged shortfall in the prescribed APAR benchmark.

Whether the delayed communication of the applicant’s APAR and the decision declaring him unsuitable for the third MACP entitled him to direct relief from the Tribunal.

Whether the applicant should first be permitted to submit a representation seeking upgradation or reconsideration of his below-benchmark APAR grading.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to seek redressal of service-related grievances.

The eligibility for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme is subject to fulfilment of the applicable service conditions, including the prescribed performance benchmark under Railway Board Establishment Circular RBE No. 155/2016.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority, rather than the Tribunal, must initially assess the correctness of an employee’s APAR grading and determine suitability for financial upgradation; the Tribunal cannot substitute itself for the competent administrative authority or “run the administration”.

It further applied the principle that an employee should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation against an adverse or below-benchmark APAR grading and that the competent authority must reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s non-selection for the third MACP was based on an alleged shortfall in the prescribed APAR benchmark.

Although the APAR and the relevant decision were communicated belatedly in 2024, the applicant had not raised a grievance in 2019 regarding non-receipt of the APAR.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal declined to directly grant the third MACP or itself assess the correctness of the APAR grading.

Applying the principle that administrative evaluation must first be undertaken by the competent authority, it held that the appropriate remedy was for the applicant to submit a comprehensive representation, supported by his self-appraisal, challenging the below-benchmark grading.

Instead, it granted the applicant liberty to submit a detailed representation, along with his self-appraisal, challenging the below-benchmark APAR grading within four weeks from receipt of the order.

The competent authority was directed to reconsider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months thereafter.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.