State Can't Withhold Career Progression Benefits For Its Own Lapse In Maintaining Performance Records: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) that ruled in favour of a State employee who was denied the benefit under Modified Assured Career Progression (“MACP”) on account of non-availability of his Annual Confidential Reports (“ACRs”)/ Annual Performance Appraisal Records (APARs).The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the duty to maintain APARs was of the employer on which the employee had no control. Hence, employer could not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong by depriving the employee of the benefit to which the s/he was otherwise entitled. “It was the bounden duty of the employer to maintain the APARs, and if the same are not available, the fault cannot be attributed to the employee and the employer cannot deny the benefit of MACP on the ground of non availability of APARs.”The respondent was appointed to the post of Assistant with the Sport Authority of India in 1987 after which he got certain promotions. After MACP scheme came into force from 2008, even after completing 20 years of service and being eligible for benefit under the Scheme, he was denied the benefits owing to non-availability of his ACRs. An original application was filed by him before CAT which held that as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (“DoPT”), it was the responsibility of the employer to keep and maintain the same, and not the employee. Hence, the application was allowed, and the State was directed to grant the benefit to the respondent. State filed a petition challenging this order before the Court which was also rejected. The Court agreed with the order given by CAT, and held that the benefit of MACP scheme could not be denied to the employee merely because of non-availability of APARs. “This Court is of the view that the maintenance of APARs falls within the exclusive domain of the employer, and the employee has no control over the same…and therefore, the action of the respondent-petitioner Authority herein in not granting the benefit of the 2nd Financial Upgradation under the MACP Scheme on the ground of nonavailability of APARs was unsustainable in law”.Accordingly, the petition as dismissed. Title: Sports Authority of India & Anr. v R.S. RathoreCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 382Click Here To Read/Download Order

State Can't Withhold Career Progression Benefits For Its Own Lapse In Maintaining Performance Records: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags