Scenario: An official was denied the benefit of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) due to a low Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) grading. The official failed to appeal against the low APAR grading within the stipulated timeframe. Subsequently, appeals were made to the Departmental Promotion Sub-Committee (DPS) and the Chief Postmaster General’s (CPMG) office, but both appeals were rejected due to the time lapse. Despite this, MACP orders were issued, but the effective date for the MACP benefit was postponed by three years to a date that coincides with the end of the low APAR grading period.
Is this action correct? Which rule governs this scenario? How should the official have proceeded?
Clarification and Response:
- Is the action of postponing the MACP correct? The action of postponing the MACP benefit to a date three years after the actual eligible date appears to be based on the period when the official received a low APAR grading. Under the MACP scheme, an official is generally eligible for promotion if they meet the required conditions, including satisfactory performance as indicated by the APAR.
The postponement of the MACP is likely a result of the low APAR grading during the relevant period. However, the delay in appealing the APAR within the prescribed time frame, coupled with the rejection of the appeals by the DPS and CPMG, suggests that the official did not take timely action to contest the low grading, which ultimately affected the MACP benefit.
- Which rule governs this scenario? The rules governing the MACP scheme are primarily outlined under the MACP Scheme (notified by the Department of Personnel & Training) and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. The APAR grading system, which is linked to career progression and promotions, is governed by guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) and the concerned administrative orders in the respective departments.
The Non-Functional Upgradation Scheme (NFU) and related Time Bound Promotion Policies under various circulars also influence how promotions, including MACP, are applied.
- How should the official have proceeded? Given that the official was denied MACP due to low APAR grading, the correct course of action would have been for her to have filed a petition to the Chief Postmaster General (CPMG) or the appropriate authority within the stipulated time frame, highlighting the circumstances that led to the low APAR grading. In this case, if there were medical or personal reasons affecting performance, the official should have provided relevant medical certificates and other documentation to substantiate the claim for reconsideration.
The appeal to CPMG should have been accompanied by supporting documents such as medical reports and evidence that could explain why the APAR grading was low during that period. This would have provided a valid basis for the reconsideration of the grading and potential rectification in the MACP order.
- What action could have been taken after the appeal rejection? After the appeals were rejected due to the time lapse, the official might have considered seeking legal recourse or filing a representation to higher authorities within the Department of Posts, the Ministry of Communications, or even the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) if necessary. However, such actions would typically depend on the specific departmental rules and the extent of time elapsed since the original grievance was raised.