Zakeer Hussain T vs Administrator UTL on 2 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Administrative Member The Applicant who has superannuated on 30.04.2025 while working as a Superintendent in Level-6 of the Pay Matrix under the Lakshadweep Administration, is aggrieved by an order bearing F.No.12/17/2021-Services/44 dated 30th December, 2022 (Annexure A-1), issued by the 3rd respondent, refusing to draw the applicant’s annual increments and to grant him the consequential benefits for the period from 2004. Applicant submits that in terms of FR-24, respondents are bound to draw the applicant’s annual increments as a matter of course unless it is withheld. The annual increments having not been withheld by any process known to law, the reasons stated for non-drawal of applicant’s annual increment due w.e.f. 2004 onwards is ultravires FR-24 and 26 and hence, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. According to the applicant, he was initially appointed on regular basis by direct recruitment as Lower Division Clerk on 12.03.1991. On completion of 12 years of service, the respondents ought to have granted the applicant

the first financial upgradation w.e.f. 12.03.2003, in the then scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000, attached to the post of Upper Division Clerk(UDC).

3. The applicant was sponsored for LLB Course (Annexure A-2 dated 18.09.2003) and was sanctioned Study Leave for a period of two years from 22.09.2003. The applicant submits that the course of study was over only on 31.03.2007(Annexure A-5) and he reported back for duty on 03.04.2007. As per the applicant, he was regularly promoted as UDC by order dated 31.01.2008 (Annexure A-6) and further promoted as Superintendent in Level 6 vide order dated 23.06.2018(Annexure A7). Even after promotion, no annual increment was drawn and therefore, he made representations (Annexures A- 8 and A-9 dated 27.09.2019 and 16.07.2020 respectively). As there was no response to the representations, he approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.181/66/2021, which was disposed by order dated 08.02.021 (Annexure A-

10) as under: “5. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider Annexure A-9 representation of the applicant in the light of relevant rules and guidelines and pass a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Subsequently, vide Annexure A-1 order dated 30.12.2022 his grievances were rejected by the respondents.

The applicant submits that the first financial upgradation due on 12.03.2003 is yet to be granted. Applicant’s annual increment due from 01.03.2004 onwards is yet to be released. Second financial upgradation due from 12.03.2011 has also not been granted. The third financial upgradation due on 12.03.2021 is also due.

4. Aggrieved by Annexure A-1 order, the applicant filed the Original Application and sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-1 and quash the same

(ii) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of first financial upgradation w.e.f. 12.03.2003 in the then scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000, the second financial upgradation in PB-1 + GP Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 12.03.2011 and the third financial upgradation in Level-7 of the pay matrix w.e.f. 12.03.2021, with all consequential arrears of pay and allowances arising therefrom

(iii) Direct the respondents to draw applicant’s annual increment, which had fallen due from 01.03.2004 onwards duly refixing applicant’s pay at every stage of promotion/financial upgradation and pay the same within a time frame as deemed fit, just and proper by this Tribunal

(iv) Direct the respondents to pay interest @9% per annum on arrears of pay and allowances including the interest on the delayed drawal of annual increments to be calculated month after month, as the arrears/increments fell due

5. The respondents filed reply statement and substantially submit that :- “8. Further, regarding his 1st ACP the Screening committee meeting convened on 04.04.2024 which is also in the final stage. Proposal for awarding his 2nd and 3rd MACPs under process and revealed that the required ACRs in respect of the applicant which is mandatory for sanction of MACP is not available with the administration.”

6. During the course of pendency of the OA, the respondents submitted MA dated 12.06.2025 stating that the applicant was granted the 1st ACP and annual increment vide order Annexure MA R1 dated 02.12.2024 and Annexure MA R2 dated 16.04.2025 respectively. With the grant of 1st ACP and annual increment vide Annexures MA R1 and MA R2, the grievances regarding grant of 2nd and 3rd MACP only survives.

The only constraint stated in the reply statement in granting 2nd and 3rd MACP is that the required ACRs in respect of the applicant, which is mandatory for sanction of MACP are not available with the administration.

7. Shri Kailesh T. Gopi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Prenjith Kumar K.S., learned counsel for the respondents were heard at length on 15.10.2026, 16.10.2026 and 28.10.2026. Perused the records. During the oral hearing the sole contention of the respondents was that the applicant

did not initiate his ACRs/APARs. Therefore, his ACR/APARs are not available with the administration. Therefore, the Screening Committee is not in a position to consider grant of 2nd and 3rd MACP benefits to the applicant. The applicant cannot take advantage of non-availability of APARs which were not initiated by him, to persuade this Tribunal for grant of MACP benefits.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant produced the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain and Abhay Jain vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and others in Miscellaneous Application No.2228 of 2026 dated 29.07.2026, drawing our attention to para 41 in conclusion: “41. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that since the applicant was itself responsible for the opponent's wrongful discharge and the resultant non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs, the said circumstance could not have been relied upon by it to deny the opponent the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale. In consonance with the principles laid down by this Court in Prabhu Dayal (supra) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi (supra) respectively, we hold that where the non-availability of the requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee's entitlement to the promotion/pay in question is required to be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs. Accordingly, we hold that the opponent's entitlement to the Selection Scale and Super Time Scale is liable to be determined on the basis of his valid ACRs for the years 2013 and 2014 (Part I & Part II), respectively”

9. Learned counsel for the applicant also produced order of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.290/528/2013 dated 29.02.2024, which examined the issue of non-availability of ACRs for the years 2003-04 to 2013 -14 leading to non-recommendation for financial upgradation of the applicant therein by the Screening Committee. The Tribunal has gone into DoPT guidelines for timely completion of APARs, which are reproduced below: “11. As per the DoP&T guidelines for timely completion of APARs are as under:- TIMELY COMPLETION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT’

As per Ministry of Personnel & Training, Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Pensions O.M. No. 35014/4/83-Estt.A dated the 23rd September, 1985:- 5.1 Annual Performance Assessment Reports are vital for proper personnel administration, it is essential that they are completed within a time-frame so that up-todate Annual Performance Assessment Reports are available at any given time. With this end in view, a time-schedule has been prescribed; and the same is included as Annexure III at the end of the Brochure. After the expiry of the first week of the time-schedule, if the self-appraisal is not received by that time, Reporting Officer should take it upon himself to remind the officer to be reported upon in writing, asking him to submit his self-appraisal. If no self-appraisal is received by the stipulated date, the reporting officer can obtain another blank APAR form and proceed to write the report on the basis of his experience of the work and conduct of the officer reported upon. While doing so, he can also point out the failure of the officer reported upon to submit his self-appraisal within the stipulated time.

As per Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No. 21011/02/2009-Estt.A dated the 16th February, 2009:- 5.2 As cases continue to occur where confirmation, regular promotion,

appointment to sensitive posts, etc., could not be considered in time because of non-availability of APARs for the relevant period, the matter of timely completion of APARs was further reviewed and it has now been provided that in case the APAR is not initiated by the Reporting Officer for any reason beyond 30th June of the year in which the financial year ended, he shall forfeit his right to enter any remarks in the APAR of the officer to be reported upon and he shall submit all APARs held by him for reporting to the Reviewing Officer on the next working day. Similarly, the Reviewing Officer shall also forfeit his right to enter any remarks in the APAR beyond 31st August of the year in which the financial year ended. The Section entrusted with maintaining the APARs shall, while forwarding the APARs for self- appraisal with copy to the Reporting/Reviewing Officers also annex the schedule of dates. It shall also bring to the notice of the Secretary concerned in the case of Ministry/Department and the Head of the organization in the case of attached and subordinate offices, the names of those Group A and B Reporting Officers and Group A Reviewing Officers in the month of October after receiving the completed APARS who have failed to initiate/review the APARs even by 30th June or 31st August as the case may be. The Secretary in the Department/Head of the organization in the case of attached/subordinate offices may direct to call for the explanation of the concerned officers for not having performed the public duty of writing the APARs within the due date and in the absence of proper justification direct that a written warning for delay in completing the APAR be placed in the APAR folder of the defaulting officer concerned.

5.3 In case the remarks of the Reporting officer or Reviewing Officer as the case may be have not been entered in the APAR due to the concerned officer forfeiting his right to make any entry as per the provision in para 2 above, a certificate to this effect shall be added in his APAR for the relevant period. In case both the Reporting officer and Reviewing officer had forfeited their rights to enter any remarks, the CR format with the self appraisal given by the officer to be reported upon will be placed in his ACR dossier.

5.4 The instructions in para 5.2 & 5.3 above shall be applicable for the APARS for the reporting period 2008-09 onwards."

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 Personal and Vigilance Divisions of the respondent department have acknowledged that the APARs of the applicant are missing but have asked the applicant to get his completed APARs deposited instead of following them with the Reporting and Reviewing Officers for the missing period. In fact, the APARs of not only the applicant but of 9 similarly placed officers were also missing (Annexure R/2) for want of which the Screening Committee could not consider their cases for financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.

Drawing from the judgements of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Shiv Kumar Srivastava vs. State of M.P. in WP 14984/2014 and of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP 24918/2015 in Dr. Renu Baveja Vs. State of Punjab & Another, the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal held as under: “15. In view of the above, the action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation on account of non- availability of ACRs is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, while allowing the OA the respondents are directed to consider and grant 2nd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant on the basis of available ACRs /APARs as per rules keeping in view the observations made by us herein above.”

10. In the factual matrix of the instant case, we have no reason to differ with the findings and conclusion of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and therefore, we direct the respondents to convene the Screening Committee within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to consider grant of 2nd and 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme to the applicant on the basis of available ACRs/APARs as per rules. On such grant of financial upgradations consequential benefits will follow and shall be payable within a period of three months thereafter, failing which interest @8% per annum shall be payable till the actual date of disbursal.

The Original Application is disposed of. No costs. (Dated the 2nd November, 2026)

BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

va

Annexures OA/180/00290/2023 Annexure-A1: A true copy of the order bearing No.F.No.12/17/2021- Services/44 dated nil December, 2022, issued by the third respondent.

Annexure-A2: A true copy of the order bearing F.No.4/18/2001- Edn(AW) dated 18.09.2003, issued by the 4th respondent.

Annexure-A3: A true copy of the No Objection Certificate bearing F.No.12/61/95-Services dated 18.09.2003, issued by the Secretary (Administration).

Annexure-A4: A true copy of the office order bearing No.33/8/2003- DMHS/2867 dated 30.08.2004, issued by the Director of Medical & Health Services.

Annexure-A5: A true copy of the Certificate issued by the Government Law College, Ernakulam, bearing No.C/Misc/2009, dated 09.03.2009.

Annexure-A6: A true copy of the office order bearing No. 12/3/2002- SERVICES dated 31.01.2008 issued by the second respondent.

Annexure-A7: A true copy of the office order bearing No.12/24/2017- Services(3)/2710 dated 23.06.2018 issued by the second respondent.

Annexure-A8: A true copy of the representation submitted by the appli- cant dated 27.09.2019, addressed to the second respondent.

Annexure-A9: A true copy of the representation submitted by the appli- cant dated 16.07.2020, addressed to the second respondent.

Annexure-A10: A true copy of the order in Ο.Α.Νο.181/00066/2021 dated 8th February, 2021. Annexure-A11: A true copy of FR-26 as published by the Swamy's Com- pilation of FR&SR 2022.

Annexure-A12 series: True copies of the representations submitted by the applicant for regularization of leave on different dates. Annexure-A13: A true copy of the Provisional Certificate bearing Book No.68, Folio No.63 dated 24.04.2025 issued by the Controller of Exami- nations,M.G.University.

Annexure-A14: A true copy of the order bearing File No.12/50/2008-Ser- vices/2586 dated 09.04.2025, issued by the Special Secretary (Services), Lakshadweep Administration. Annexure-A15: A true copy of the office order bearing F.No.2/1/2025- S&T dated 29.04.2025, issued by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Technology. *** Annexure R1(a): True copy of order F.No.12/17/2021-Services/44 dated 30.12.2022 of Special Secretary (Services).

AnnexureR1(b): True copy of order F.No.12/1/2021-Services(P)(1)/1560 dated 31.07.2022 *** Annexure MA R1: True copy of the Office Order F.No.A-32015/1/2020- Estt-UT-LKS/1860 dated 02.12.2024. Annexure MA R2: True copy of the Office Order F.NO.2/1/2025-S&T/152 dated 16.04.2025

*******