Competent authority must decide APAR-related MACP representations by a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant was appointed as a Health Inspector on 28 November 1995 and was subsequently promoted as Food Inspector on 10 September 1999.

He was serving as Chief Health Inspector and claimed the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit in the Grade Pay of ₹5,400 upon completing 30 years of service on 28 November 2025.

His claim was not accepted because his APAR was not graded “Very Good.” Although the Reporting and Reviewing Officers assessed his APAR for 2024–25 as “Very Good,” the Accepting Officer downgraded it to “Good.”

The applicant contended that the downgrading was made without prior notice, warning, or specific reasons. His appeal against the grading was rejected on 4 May 2026, and his subsequent representation dated 25 May 2026 seeking the third MACP benefit remained pending.

During the hearing, the applicant limited his prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of that representation by a reasoned order.

Whether the applicant’s pending representation dated 25 May 2026 seeking the third MACP benefit was required to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable APAR and MACP provisions?

Whether the Tribunal should itself determine the applicant’s entitlement to the third MACP benefit or issue only a direction for consideration of his representation?

The Tribunal applied the principles governing consideration of benefits under the applicable Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and the relevant instructions concerning assessment and communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs).

It further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a representation fairly and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant alleged that the “Good” APAR grading, which affected his eligibility for the third MACP, was improperly recorded because the Reporting and Reviewing Officers had awarded “Very Good,” while the Accepting Officer downgraded it without adequate reasons or prior notice.

However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s representation concerning the APAR and MACP claim was still pending. Since the respondents had no objection to its consideration, and the applicant agreed to limit his relief accordingly, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the relevant APAR entry and the applicable MACP scheme and decide the representation by a reasoned order, without expressing any view on the merits.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the applicant’s claim. No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.