Employer Cannot Deny MACP for APARs Lost Due to Its Own Lapse | Screening Committee Must Assess on Available Records per DoPT Norms : CAT Ernakulam

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has held that an employer cannot deny Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits to an employee on the ground of non-availability of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) when such non-availability is attributable to the employer's own failure to comply with Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines for timely completion of APARs. The Tribunal directed the respondents to convene a Screening Committee within three months to consider the applicant's second and third financial upgradations on the basis of available ACRs/APARs, with consequential benefits payable within three months thereafter and interest at 8% per annum for any further delay.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Zakeer Hussain T., a Superintendent (Level-6) in the Lakshadweep Administration, superannuated on 30 April 2025. He challenged an order dated 30 December 2022 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Special Secretary (Services), which refused to draw his annual increments and grant consequential benefits for the period from 2004 onwards. The applicant contended that under Fundamental Rules 24 and 26, annual increments are due as a matter of course unless withheld by a process known to law, and their non-drawal was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Key Facts

• The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) by direct recruitment on 12 March 1991.
• On completion of 12 years of service, the first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme fell due on 12 March 2003 in the then scale of Rs. 4,000 - 6,000 (UDC grade).
• The applicant was sponsored for an LLB course and sanctioned study leave for two years from 22 September 2003 (Annexure A-2). The course concluded on 31 March 2007 (Annexure A-5), and he reported back for duty on 3 April 2007.
• He was promoted as UDC by order dated 31 January 2008 (Annexure A-6) and as Superintendent in Level-6 by order dated 23 June 2018 (Annexure A-7).
• Despite promotions, no annual increments were drawn. The applicant made representations on 27 September 2019 (Annexure A-8) and 16 July 2020 (Annexure A-9).
• Aggrieved by the lack of response, he filed OA No. 181/66/2021, which was disposed of on 8 February 2021 (Annexure A-10) directing the respondents to consider his representation and pass a speaking order within three months.
• The impugned order dated 30 December 2022 rejected his grievances.
• During the pendency of the present OA, the respondents granted the first ACP and annual increment vide orders dated 2 December 2024 (Annexure MA R1) and 16 April 2025 (Annexure MA R2) respectively.
• The surviving grievance concerned the second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme, due from 12 March 2011 (PB-1 + GP Rs. 2,800) and 12 March 2021 (Level-7) respectively.
• The respondents' sole defence was that the required ACRs/APARs were not available because the applicant did not initiate them.

Procedural History

• 12 March 1991: Applicant appointed as LDC.
• 12 March 2003: First financial upgradation (ACP) due.
• 22 September 2003 - 31 March 2007: Study leave for LLB.
• 31 January 2008: Promotion to UDC.
• 23 June 2018: Promotion to Superintendent (Level-6).
• 27 September 2019: First representation (Annexure A-8).
• 16 July 2020: Second representation (Annexure A-9).
• 8 February 2021: CAT order in OA No. 181/66/2021 directing respondents to pass speaking order.
• 30 December 2022: Impugned order (Annexure A-1) rejecting grievances.
• 2023: Present OA No. 181/00290/2023 filed.
• 2 December 2024: First ACP granted (Annexure MA R1).
• 16 April 2025: Annual increment granted (Annexure MA R2).
• 30 April 2025: Applicant superannuated.
• 15, 16, 28 October 2026: Hearings before the Tribunal.
• 2 November 2026: Judgment delivered.

Relief Sought

The applicant sought: (i) quashing of the order dated 30 December 2022; (ii) grant of first financial upgradation w.e.f. 12 March 2003, second w.e.f. 12 March 2011, and third w.e.f. 12 March 2021 with all consequential arrears; (iii) drawal of annual increments from 1 March 2004 onwards with refixation of pay at every stage; (iv) interest at 9% per annum on arrears calculated month after month.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the non-availability of ACRs/APARs - alleged to be due to the employee's failure to initiate them - can be invoked by the employer to deny MACP benefits, or whether the employer's statutory duty under DoPT guidelines to ensure timely completion of APARs renders such non-availability attributable to the employer, requiring assessment on the basis of available records.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

Counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain (Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026, decided 29 July 2026), specifically paragraph 41, which holds that where non-availability of requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of remaining valid ACRs. Counsel also cited the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 290/528/2013 (decided 29 February 2024), which examined DoPT guidelines and held that completion of APARs is primarily the responsibility of Reporting and Reviewing Officers and the department. The applicant argued that the Personal and Vigilance Divisions had acknowledged missing APARs but shifted the burden to the applicant instead of pursuing Reporting/Reviewing Officers, and that APARs of nine similarly placed officers were also missing for the same reason.

For the Respondents

Counsel contended that the applicant did not initiate his ACRs/APARs, rendering them unavailable, and that the Screening Committee could not consider MACP benefits without them. The respondent maintained that the applicant cannot take advantage of non-availability of APARs caused by his own inaction to claim financial upgradation.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal, per Administrative Member Braj Mohan Agrawal, examined the DoPT guidelines for timely completion of APARs reproduced in the Jodhpur Bench decision. The guidelines (O.M. No. 35014/4/83-Estt.A dated 23 September 1985 and O.M. No. 21011/02/2009-Estt.A dated 16 February 2009) establish a clear time-schedule: if the self-appraisal is not submitted by the stipulated date, the Reporting Officer must remind the officer and, failing submission, proceed to write the report on the basis of his experience. Crucially, if the APAR is not initiated by the Reporting Officer by 30 June of the year following the financial year, the Reporting Officer forfeits the right to enter remarks and must forward the APAR to the Reviewing Officer. The Reviewing Officer similarly forfeits rights beyond 31 August. The department is obligated to monitor compliance and initiate action against defaulting officers.

"In the light of DoPT guidelines above, it is amply clear that completion of APARs is mainly the responsibility of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers and finally it is the responsibility of the respondent department to follow up and maintain the APARs of officers."

The Tribunal noted that the Personal and Vigilance Divisions had acknowledged the APARs were missing but had asked the applicant to get them deposited instead of following up with Reporting and Reviewing Officers. The fact that APARs of nine similarly placed officers were also missing reinforced the conclusion that the failure was systemic and attributable to the administration.

Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhay Jain, the Tribunal held that where non-availability of ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee's entitlement must be determined on the basis of available valid ACRs. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the Jodhpur Bench's conclusion that denial of financial upgradation on account of non-availability of ACRs is not sustainable in law.

The Verdict

The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal directed the respondents to convene the Screening Committee within three months from receipt of the order to consider grant of the second and third financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme on the basis of available ACRs/APARs as per rules. Consequential benefits shall be payable within three months thereafter. Failure to disburse within that period will attract interest at 8% per annum till actual payment. The Original Application was disposed of with no costs.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Employer's Duty to Maintain APARs Is Non-Delegable

The judgment reinforces that the obligation to ensure timely completion and maintenance of APARs rests squarely on the employer - specifically the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer, and the administrative department. An employee's failure to submit a self-appraisal does not absolve the Reporting Officer of the duty to write the report; the DoPT guidelines expressly empower the Reporting Officer to proceed without it. Practitioners should cite the specific timelines (30 June for Reporting Officer, 31 August for Reviewing Officer) and the consequence of forfeiture of rights to enter remarks when challenging denials of promotion or financial upgradation based on missing APARs.

Missing APARs Attributable to Employer Cannot Prejudice Employee

• Where APARs are missing due to administrative lapse - including failure to initiate, remind, or follow up - the employee's entitlement to MACP/ACP/promotion must be assessed on the basis of available valid ACRs/APARs.
• The Supreme Court's Abhay Jain principle (para 41) is now binding authority: non-availability attributable to the employer cannot be used to deny the employee's claim.
• Systemic failure (multiple officers affected) strengthens the inference that the lapse is administrative, not individual.

Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners

• In MACP/ACP denial cases, obtain the DoPT O.M.s (1985 and 2009) and the department's APAR completion schedule; cross-examine on whether Reporting/Reviewing Officers were reminded and whether forfeiture provisions were invoked.
• Seek directions for Screening Committee/DPC to meet within a fixed timeline (three months is now a benchmark) and for consequential benefits with interest (8% per annum awarded here) for delayed compliance.
• Cite Abhay Jain (2026) and the Jodhpur Bench CAT decision (OA 290/528/2013, 29 February 2024) as persuasive authority for assessment on available records.