Page No.# 1/7 vs Union Of India And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8639 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 18 November, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010067042024




                                                                     2025:GAU-AS:15608

                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : WP(C)/1982/2024

            NO.G/144139 WARRANT OFFICER/GD YASH PAUL
            S/O- LATE JULSHI RAM SHARMA,
            PRESENTLY SERVING AT 14TH ASSAM RIFLES, C/O 99 APO

            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
            AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01

            2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
            ASSAM RIFLES HEAD QUARTER DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES
             SHILLONG-11

            3:THE COMMANDANT
             14 ASSAM RUIFLES
             C/O 99 APO
             PIN-93204

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR V KUMAR, MR. T NATH,MS M TIWARI,MR B
HAZARIKA,MR B PATHAK

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K K PARASAR (r-1,2,3)

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Page No.# 2/7

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.11.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

Judgment & Order(Oral)

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

2. By filing this writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant benefit of MACP-III to the petitioner on completion of 30 years of service, i.e., with effect from 06.07.2022, by expunging any uncommunicated adverse entry in his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR). The petitioner has also prayed for revision of pay and allowances after granting of MACP-III w.e.f. 06.07.2022.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 06.07.1992 as a Rifleman/GD (General Duty) and was posted to

14th Assam Rifles in the year 1993. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar/GD in the year 2011 and then, to the rank of Warrant Officer/GD in the year 2019.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has completed the qualifying requirement for the benefit of MACP-III, as he is entitled to the benefit after completion of 30 years in service, i.e., with effect from 06.07.2022. Despite his eligibility, the petitioner has been deprived of being granted the benefits of MACP-III while the said benefit has been granted to his juniors.

Page No.# 3/7

Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for grant of the benefit of MACP-III, as the petitioner has completed 30 years of qualifying service. The Officer Commanding, vide letter dated 11.01.2024, has also requested the concerned authorities to grant the benefit of MACP-III as the petitioner has completed 30 years in service.

5. It is contended that, surprisingly, the Commandant, 14 th Assam Rifles, vide letter dated 27.01.2024, has informed that the name of the petitioner has not been recommended for the benefit of MACP-III on completion of 30 years of service, i.e., with effect from 06.07.2022, due to lacking of APAR for the year 2022. The petitioner contends that the said fact of lacking of APAR or any adverse entry in his APAR for any particular year was never communicated to him till the letter dated 27.01.2024 was issued by the

Commandant, 14th Assam Rifles. Therefore, the uncommunicated adverse remarks/entries in the APARs cannot be acted upon to deny the benefit of MACP-III to the petitioner.

6. Mr. B. Phatak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 33 years of unblemished service to the organization and is now at the fag end of his service career. Except for the alleged lack of APAR, the petitioner fulfils all other criteria for grant of the MACP-III benefit on completion of 30 years of service, i.e., with effect from 06.07.2022. The entries/remarks in the petitioner's APAR have never been communicated to him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to raise his grievance by way of a representation in terms of the relevant provisions, which the respondents have expressly violated.

7. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel, while referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., Page No.# 4/7

reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, which have been reiterated in the subsequent cases, submits that law relating to recording of Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) and its communication, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has held that uncommunicated remarks in the APARs cannot be acted upon and are directed to be expunged. Therefore, he submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of MACP-III on completion of 30 years, i.e., with effect from 06.07.2022, and to revise the pay and allowances after granting the benefit of MACP-III.

8. Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3,

submits that for grant of the 3 rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme on completion of 30 years of qualifying service, the petitioner's case was screened by a Board of Officers in its proceedings dated 11.01.2022. The last three APARs for the years 2020 to 2022 were taken into consideration, wherein it was revealed that he has been graded "Good" with "Not Recommended for Promotion" by the Reporting Officer, which was below the prescribed benchmark of "Very Good" for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme.

Therefore, the petitioner has not been granted the benefits of the 3 rd financial upgradation under the said scheme. He submits that said grading/entry in the APARs was communicated to the petitioner, and due acknowledgment was received on being endorsed his signature on the APARs. The petitioner had the liberty to submit a representation, if any, against the grading through his initiating/reviewing authority, within five (5) days of receipt/communication of the APARs for consideration by the competent authority. However, the petitioner failed to avail such remedy. Therefore, the petitioner has been rightly denied the benefit of MACP-III as per the relevant provisions.

Page No.# 5/7

9. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel, while rejoining the submission, submits that although the grading in the APARs appears to have been shown to the petitioner by obtaining his signature, such showing of the grading/entries in the APARs cannot be said to constitute proper communication, as the provision requires that the accepting authority, after endorsement, will return the APAR to the reviewing officer for communication of the entries to the ratee. The reviewing authority is required to ensure communication of the APAR to the ratee and obtain his signature as acknowledgment, as per Appendix "F," which requires an acknowledgment certifying that a photocopy of the APAR report for the particular period has been served on a particular date, which the ratee must acknowledge. Therefore, mere showing of the entries in the APAR, if at all, cannot be said to constitute communication of the grading of the APAR in the eyes of the law.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

11. The petitioner, who enrolled as a Rifleman/GD in the year 1992 and was

posted to the 14th Assam Rifles in the year 1993, was promoted from time to time to different higher ranks, the last being the rank of Warrant Officer/GD in the year 2019. The petitioner admittedly completed the qualifying requirements

for the benefit of the 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme. The

non-recommendation for the 3rd financial upgradation under the said scheme appears to be due to the grading of "Good" by the Reporting Officer of the petitioner in the APAR for the year 2022, which was below the prescribed benchmark of "Very Good" for grant of financial upgradation.

12. The record reveals that the signature of the petitioner was obtained by endorsing in the column for signature of the ratee, which clearly indicates that Page No.# 6/7

the same was obtained after merely showing the entries of the APAR. Thus, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as such action of obtaining the signature as an acknowledgment after simply showing the entries of the APAR would not suffice and cannot be considered as proper communication, inasmuch as the office instructions relating to the Annual Performance Assessment Report provides that the accepting authority, after endorsement, will return the APAR to the reviewing officer for communication of the entries to the ratee. The reviewing authority is required to ensure communication of the APAR to the ratee and obtain his signature as acknowledgment as per Appendix "F," and to be certified that a photocopy of the APAR for the particular period is served to the ratee, which the ratee must acknowledge. Therefore, obtaining the signature after merely showing the entries of the APAR cannot be said to constitute proper communication, and as such, such uncommunicated entry/grading in the APAR cannot be acted upon and obviously shall not be the basis for denying the benefit of MACP-III to the petitioner.

13. The law relating to the recording of ACRs/APARs has been well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, right from Dev Dutt (supra) to Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1291. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every entry, irrespective of whether it is poor, average, good, very good, or outstanding, should be communicated to the concerned government servant within a reasonable period. Non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee. Thus, non-communication of any entry/grading in the APAR is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, an uncommunicated entry/grade in an ACR/APAR cannot be acted upon and deserves to be expunged.

Page No.# 7/7

14. In the present case, as noted above, the respondent authorities failed to communicate the entry/grading in the APAR of the petitioner, except obtaining the signature after showing the APAR, which is not in accordance with the required procedure. However, the authorities have acted on the said uncommunicated entry/grading of the APAR, thereby depriving the petitioner

from being granted the 3 rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, to which the petitioner is legally entitled, and therefore, such action is illegal and, as such, the same deserves to be expunged.

15. In view of the above, the action of denying the grant of 3 rd financial upgradation to the petitioner under the MACP scheme on completion of 30 years in service on the basis of uncommunicated entry/grading in the APAR is not sustainable. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to ignore the uncommunicated adverse entries/grading in the ACRs/APARs of the petitioner

for the year 2022 and grant the 3 rd financial upgradation under the MACP scheme, within a period of 3 (three) months from today.

16. Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant