Uncommunicated adverse APAR gradings cannot justify withdrawal of MACP benefits.

The applicant, a Postal Department employee who retired on 31 January 2016, had been granted second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme without a first upgradation.

After his retirement, the department revised the benefits, recovered ₹1,87,678 from his gratuity, and, following a review DPC, granted only the first MACP from 1 April 2014 while withdrawing the second and third upgradations.

The review DPC relied on APAR gradings that the applicant said had never been communicated to him.

He challenged the order dated 30 November 2017 and sought restoration of the MACP benefits and refund of the recovery.

1. Whether the department could withdraw the applicant’s MACP upgradations on the basis of uncommunicated APAR gradings.

2. Whether the department could recover the alleged excess payment from the applicant’s gratuity after retirement, where no fraud or misrepresentation by him was alleged.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the basis for the application.

Under Dev Dutt v. Union of India, as affirmed in Sukhdeo Singh v. Union of India, entries in a public servant’s ACR/APAR—including entries that are not formally adverse—must be communicated within a reasonable time, since non-communication may affect service benefits and offend Article 14; an employee must have an opportunity to represent against them.

The Tribunal also applied State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which identifies recovery from retired employees as a category in which recovery of mistaken excess payments is impermissible, particularly where the employee did not obtain the payment through fraud or misrepresentation.

The review DPC revised the applicant’s MACP position based on corrected APAR gradings, but those gradings had not been communicated to him and he had no opportunity to challenge them. Applying the principles in Dev Dutt and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions cited, the Tribunal held that the uncommunicated gradings could not justify withdrawing the previously granted upgradations.

As to recovery, the applicant had retired before the recovery was made, and the record disclosed no fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment by him; the error arose from the department’s own processing of the records. The Tribunal therefore considered recovery from his gratuity impermissible under Rafiq Masih.

The directions were to be completed within three months.