Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms.Sarita Bali vs Union Of India on 21 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2894/2011 With MA No.2093/2011 New Delhi, this the 21st day of October,2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Ms.Sarita Bali, D/o Late Col. W.M. Bali, C-24, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. .... Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri A.K. Behera) Versus 1. Union of India, Through The Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Establishment Officer, The Department of Personnel & Training, Additional Secretary(ACC), North Block, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates: Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj with Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) : O R D E R :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Ms. Sarita Bali, belonging to the 1974 batch of Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the orders of the respondents in rejecting her representation for promotion to the Grade-I of IFS and also antedating of her promotion to the Grade-II of IFS when her batchmates were promoted. She is also aggrieved in respect of the composition of the Deparatmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with officers junior to her Batch in IFS which considered her case of antedating her promotion to Grade-II of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS). Impugning those orders she has approached this Tribunal in the present OA with the following relief(s) :-
1. quash the order dated August, 2011 where in the respondent has rejected the representation dt. 14.09.2009 (copy of which has not been supplied to the applicant) and denied promotion to the applicant to Grade I. 1(a) quashing of Order dated 24.7.2009 issued by the Respondent No.1 whereby the applicant was conveyed the CAPAR Grading for the period 4/04 to 3/08 as Good.
2. Quash and set aside the remarks in the applicants ACRs for the period October, 2006 to March 2007 and CPARs 2007-08 with a direction to the Respondents that the same be not taken into consideration in future for any purpose including promotion, posting etc. To issue direction to the respondents to
a) Antedate the promotion of the applicant as Grade-II of the IFS w.e.f. March 2004 being the date when her immediate junior of the 1974 batch was granted such promotion by setting aside the review DPC of Sept. 2010 which was held for antedating the promotion of the applicant to Grade-II even though there was no requirement in law.
b) To promote the applicant to Grade-I of the IFS w.e.f. 2009 and antedating the same w.e.f. March 2007 when immediate junior of her batch was promoted to Grade-I. Direct the respondents to produce the file of ACC decisions on the DPC of panel year 2009-10, record of review DPCs for Grade-II held in March and July, 2010 which were deferred, file of ACC decision on the review DPC of September, 2010 for antedating promotion of Grade-II and also ACC decision on the applicants promotion to Grade-I w.e.f. 2009 as recommended by DOP&T and approved by Cabinet Secretary, External affairs Minister and Home Minister against which the applicant had represented (14.09.2009 etc.), which was not approved by ACC.
To grant all relief, to the applicant, consequential to the grants of relief (a) and (b) above including seniority and arrears of pay etc., To grant costs of this OA to the applicant herein, and Pass such further order (s) and to give direction(s) as deemd fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. At the time of filing this OA, she was working in Grade-II of IFS as Additional Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and lateron retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is the case of the applicant that her Batchmates have been promoted to the Grade-III of IFS in 1992 ignoring her. On her representation, she was given promotion to Grade-III of IFS, i.e., Joint Secretary w.e.f. 1992 though the order was issued in 2004 with retrospective effect, after approval by the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The next higher post in IFS is Grade-II i.e. Additional Secretary. The eligible ofifcers of 1974 batch of IFS excluding the applicant were promoted to Grade-II, i.e. Additional Secretary in 2004, whereas she was not considered for promotion in 2004 to Grade-II of IFS along with her batchmates as she was not holding the post of Joint Secretary at that time. The claim of the applicant is that she should have been considered for promotion to Grade-II along with the batch of 1974 in the light of the decision taken by the respondents to give effect to her promotion to Grade-III i.e. Joint Secretary level retrospectively from 1992 along with her batch. The Review DPC dated 12.8.2010 has found her Unfit and did not recommend her promotion to the Grade-II of IFS with retrospective effect (March, 2004), the date of promotion of her immediate junior. The next higher promotion post being Grade-I i.e. Secretary, the batch 1974 of IFS was considered for promotion in 2007 and some of them were promoted but the applicant was not considered. It is the case of the applicant that she should have been considered for promotion to Grade-I of the IFS in 2007 along with her 1974 batchmates of IFS. The DPC dated 30.07.2009 has found her Unfit and did not recommend her promotion to the Grade-I of the Indian Foreign Service for the Panel Year 2009-10. It is noticed that when the recommendations of the DPC dated 30.7.2009 and the review DPC dated 12.10.2010 in the matter of promotion of the applicant was processed, the Cabinet Secretary mooted the note to accept the said recommendations, which were agreed to by the External Affairs Minister and Home Minister, but the Prime Minister raised five sets of clarifications. The Secretary to ACC clarifying the position submitted a fresh proposal for the ACC seeking orders in paragraph 11 in terms of the following:-
(i) Promotion of Ms. Sarita Bali (IFS : 74) to the Grade-I of the IFS for the panel year 2009-10 by not accepting the recomendations of DPC dated 30.7.2009 finding her Unfit and
(ii) Promotion of Ms. Sarita Bali to Grade-II with retrospective effect along with her batch by rejecting the recommendations of the review DPC dated 12.10.2010. While the above proposal was accepted by the Cabinet Secretary, External Affairs Minister, and Home Minister, on the other hand the Director, PMO conveyed on 27.7.2011 the following Prime Minister has declined the proposals in Para 11. The applicant is aggrieved by the above decision.
3. The benchmark for fitness for promotion to the Grade-III, Grade-II and Grade-I of the IFS, it is claimed by the applicant is Very Good with special reference to last five available ACRs for the DPC to consider when the DPC met in the year 2003 and 2006 for Grade-II and I respectively. But the applicant was, however, considered for promotion to Grade-II of the IFS only in 2006 by the DPC wherein five available ACRs upto the period 2004-05 were examined. Applicant was approved by the ACC for promotion to Grade-II of the IFS in February, 2008. The applicants case is that her all available ACRs upto September, 2006 are, either Very Good or Outstanding and the requirement for meeting the benchmark for promotion to Grade-II (in 2004) and Grade-I (in 2006) being Very Good or above during last five available ACRs, she should have been promoted to Grade-II and Grade-I along with her 1974 batch mates. But she has not been promoted in time. Being aggrieved she submitted her representation which on consideration by the competent authority directed a review DPC to be convened for considering her promotion to the Grade-I and II of IFS vide letter dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure-II). Accordingly, a reveiw DPC was held in August, 2010 to review antedating of her promotion to Grade-II and promotion to Grade-I of IFS. Three members of DPC being junior to the applicant, and being against the principle of a review DPC, the entire process was vitiated.
4. Referring to the above background of the case in general and more specially to her ACRs, Shri A.K. Behera, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents confirmed in para 5(c) of their counter affidavit that applicant had Outstanding ACRs till 1983, and Very Good ACRs from 2001 till September, 2006, which was reflected in the letter No.49/44/5/NGO/II dated 23.09.2011 that the applicants ACRs for 1985 (8 months) is also Outstanding. The respondents have confirmed that only other ACR available for the period of 2000-01 written by Shri J.C. Sharma has been ignorned as per ACC directives. ACRs of 1984 (5 months) and 1986-87, the gradings were expunged by ACC on grounds that the column entries were far superior to the grading Good. This has been accepted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the applicant is, therefore, eligible and fit for promotion to Grade-II in 2004 and Grade-I in 2006, as the same ACRs have been accepted by the ACC which has approved her promotions in 2004 and 2008. Thus, the same ACRs relevant for Grade-II and I along with 1974 batch w.e.f. 2004 & 2007 having been considered by ACC as fit for promotion to Grade-II in February 2008, the applicant should be deemed to be fit for promotion to Grade-II w.e.f. 2004 and Grade-I w.e.f.2007.
5. It is contended that the Review DPC held in August, 2010 has considered extraneous factors and violated rules and guidelines relating to DPC procedure reflecting bias in order to victimize her and the recommendation of the DPC suffers from many infirmities. (a) Not assessing the applicant on the basis of available ACRs in accordance with Government instructions in the OM dated 10.04.1989 is a major deviation. (b) Making assessment for leave period and period of compulsory wait, when the applicant was not assigned any work and as such there was no ACR or record available for assessing the applicant in the review DPC. (c) Assessing the applicant unfit on the basis of closed disciplinary cases wherein all charges were dropped on the orders of the Prime Minister prejudiced her. (d) Following procedure contrary to Government instructions and review DPC refusing to go beyond 1985 to look into the available ACRs on record of the DPC is another example of infirmity. Instructions clearly mandate that in the event of non-availability of ACRs for any reason, DPC must to go back to earlier years to make up for the required number of ACRs, i.e. five. Even the DPC held by respondent No.1 in 2009 for Grade-I and all previous DPCs had considered ACRs prior to 1986 in place of unavailable ACRs of 1986 to 2000. The counsel for the applicant would submit that the respodnents did not raise any objections in respect of the above points in their counter affidavit but mentioned that the DPC would devise its own procedures for assessment. However, it is urged that review DPC has to follow Government instructions and guidelines for DPC as procedure so adopted should not be arbitrary. The counsel would, therefore, contend that the applicants ACRs were not properly calculated for which she secured 80.66 for 120 months which would have been 84.26. The numerical benchmark being 84, she should have been found fit for promotion to the Grade-I of IFS by the DPC. Few specific instances were highlighted viz, the ACR for 2000-01 (written by Shri J.C. Sharma) which was to be ignored as per ACC directive and assigning scores of zero to four ACRs (1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985) which were accepted as Outstanding, the DPC thereby miscalculated and assessed the applicant with a score of 80.66. Had the correct calculation been done, the applicant would have been found fit for Grade-I. The ACRs for the period October, 2006 to March, 2007 and 2007-08, were found by the DOP&T to have been written against Government instructions, which were not ignored.
6. Further our attention was drawn by the applicants counsel to a comprehensive proposal put up to the ACC proposing therein antedating of promotion of the applicant to Grade-II and promotion to Grade-I. The said proposal was recommended by the Cabinet Secretary and agreed to by External Affairs Minister and Home Minister but as the proposal was not agreed to by the Prime Minister, she was not promoted to Grade-I. Shri Behera stated that the said decision of ACC contradicted two earlier decisions of the ACC taken in 2004 and 2008 approving applicants promotion to Grade-III and Grade-II of the IFS based on the same ACRs/ records. The decision of ACC in this regard not conceding to the claims of the applicant was termed as unreasonable and arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside. In view of the above, it was urged that the OA should be allowed.
7. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply affidavit on 22.09.2011. Further, on the directions of this Tribunal, respondents have also filed an additional affidavit. The respondents have also submitted the relevant file No.8/2/2009-EO/SMII (Vol.II) on the subject of empanelment for promotion to Grade-I (Secretary level of IFS). Mrs. Priyanka Bhardwaj assisted by Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the applicant had a chequered career with more than 10 years of non-availability of ACR due to two main reasons (i) long leave and (ii) compulsory wait. In the absence of these ACRs, the Competent Authority has taken a considered view and granted her Grade-III of IFS (Joint Secretary level) from the date on which her batch got the said grade. Further, on consideration of her representation, the Competent Authority granted her promotion to the rank of Additional Secretary (IFS Grade-II) but antedating the same to the year in which applicants batchmates got the promotion to the said grade could not be acceded to. Further with regard to her promotion to the Secretary level (IFS Grade-I), it was contended that the DPC found her Unfit and the Competent Authority, namely, ACC agreeing with the recommendation of the DPC, did not grant her promotion to the said grade. It is submitted that the process for considering her promotion to both the grades have been properly followed and there has been no deviation from the extant guidelines. In this regard Mrs. Bhardwaj hastened to add that the composition of the DPC, though alleged that three juniors of the applicant were Members, but on facts those three officers were in the grade of Secretary whereas the case of the applicant to be considered was in the Additional Secretary grade. Those three officers have reached the Secretary level much before the applicants case could be considered. It was admittedly stated that the additional affidavit filed by the respondents would manifest that the applicant was senior in batch (1974) whereas those three Members belonged to the junior batch, namely, 1975 and 1976. Referring to the extant guidelines issued by the DOP&T, she would submit that the respondents and Competent Authority followed the guidelines for composition of DPC in both letter and spirit and there has been no infirmity in this. Referring to the non-availability of ACR and consideration of the available ACRs for applicants promotion to the level of Secretary as well as antedating the promotion to the level of Additional Secretary, it was contended that DPC examined the ACRs as per the rules and procedure has been fully complied with in awarding marks to the applicant by which she could not reach the desired bench mark for marks for getting her promotion to the Secretary level. In the background of this contention, Mrs. Bhardwaj would urge that this case does not have merits and, therefore, OA should be dismissed.
8. Having heard the contentions of the parties, with their assistance we perused the pleadings. We also very carefully went through very closely the files of the respondents placed before us. The controversy in the present OA revolves around only few focused issues. (i) Whether the applicants claim for antedating her promotion to the rank of Additional Secretary and further promotion to the rank of Secretary level had been processed properly or not and decision of the Competent Authority is legally tenable? (ii) Whether the composition of the DPC with the officers belonging to junior batch to the applicant, has vitiated the promotion process for consideration of applicants case for promotion to the Grade-II and I of IFS? We would discuss these two interlinked issues in the following paragraphs.
9. A close and careful perusal of the file placed before us would disclose that the ACC had occasion to conisder her case more than once. A propsal was submitted for consideration by the ACC in September, 2010 inter alia on (i) promotion of the applicant to the Grade-I of the IFS for the panel year 2009-10, by not accepting the recommendation of DPC dated 30.07.2009, finding her Unfit and (ii) to direct the Ministry of External Affairs to expedite their response/ comments/outcome with respect to her respresentation within two months time. The Cabinet Secretary desired to have her ACR Dossiers and the status of the consideration of her case by the DPC. The Ministry of External Affairs submitted the ACR Dossiers and the status note of the Review DPC for her promotion to the Grade-II of IFS along with her batch and found her Unfit for promotion. The review DPC inter alia noted that (i) She had shown promise in the earlier part of her career i.e. from 1970s to early 1980s; (ii) during late 80s and 1990s she was on several periods of long leave; and (iii) for more than four years she was on Compulsory wait (1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000) without any substantive charges. The total period of leave and compulsory wait is about 10 years. She was on EOL/HPL from 2.4.1991 to 23.6.1995 and was on compulsory wait from June 1995 to May, 2000.
10. It is noticed that due to leave and compulsory wait, there is no ACR and even no assessment could be made for almost 15 years period preceding 2003,the year in which her fitness for promotion to Grade-II was to be judged by the Review DPC. Though, she was charged for deserting her posts in Embassy of India at Kathmandu in October, 1984 and in Embassy of India at Warsaw, it is admitted by the respondents that both cases had been closed. In this background of her career, we note that the DPC found her Unfit on two main grounds (a) Performance until 1986 not relevant and (b) the performance during 1986 to 2000 was found wanting and there was no indication that her performance could be described as Very Good.
11. The case of the applicant is rather unusual. It must be noted that absence of any ACR for the said period needs to be ignored and the DPC has to go back to the available ACR for the previous years. It is noticed that the DPC for her promotion to Grade-III and II have ignored the said period. We are sanguine that the DPC has committed error in not taking the ACRs of the period prior to 1986 into consideration, as there is no guideline of the DOP&T about any time limit for substituting missing or unavailable ACRs. On the contrary DPC should consider the earlier years to make up for the required number of ACRs. It is further noticed that the ACRs for the year from January 1987 to March, 2007 being no report period should have been treated as un-assessed periods.
12. It must be mentioned here that there was a DPC for promotion of the applicant to the Grade-III for the year 1992 which resulted in her retrospective promotion with effect from 1992 when the next junior officer of her batch was promoted and the ACC approved her retrospective promotion in February, 2004. This signifies that in the year 2004, the applicants case has been properly considered by ACC for granting Joint Secretary level promotion w.e.f. 1992. This directly demonstrates that if her available ACRs could make her fit for IFS Grade-III, with the same set of ACRs her eligibility for consideration for promotion to the Grade-II i.e. Additional Secretary along with her batchmates for the year 2004 would have gone in her favour.
13. We find from the records placed before us that the ACC has inter alia directed (a) for ignoring the ACR for 2000-01, (b) expunction of ACR grading for 1984, 1986 and 1989-90 by ignoring these ACRs, (c) the DOP&T has opined that the ACRs for February December, 1985 and for 1981, 1982 and 1983 grading her Excellent should be seen as above the benchmark of Very Good and (d) the ACRs of the following period cannot be taken into account i.e. (i) 1990 to 2000 are not available; (ii) 1980-90 expunged; (iii) January 1986 to December, 1988 NRC; (iv) January 1986 to December 1986 expunged by ACC; (v) February, 1985 to December, 1985 there is no grading; (vi) December, 1984 February 1985 grading expunged; (vii) February 1984 to December, 1984 grading expunged; (viii) 1986-87 expunged and 1987-88 was non recordable.
14. Further careful scrutiny of her ACR details available in the respondents file would show that the applicant had grading of Very Good or above gradings in her ACRs for the year 2001-02, 1982-83, 1981-82, 1980-81 and 1979-80. The bench mark for promotion was Very Good for Grade-II of IFS in the year 2003. The applicant, therefore, should have been graded fit for promotion along with her 1974 batchmates in the DPC held in 2003 for IFS Grade-II posts.
15. We may refer to her claim for promotion to the Grade-I of IFS. The DPC considered in July, 2009, 1974 batch of IFS officer for promotion to Grade-I of IFS. Had the DPC considered the analysis given by us for the Grade-II keeping in mind the ACC directions for her promotion to the Grade-III post the total marks would have been more than 85 against the indicated marks of 80.66. The applicant therefore, would easily fulfill the criteria of fitness for promotion to Grade-I applied by the DPC of July, 2009 i.e. more than 84% marks over 120 months period. We, therefore, feel that had the correct facts and documents (ACRs) been brought before the DPC, the applicant would have been assessed as fit for promotion by the DPC of July, 2009 to Grade-I of IFS.
16. With regard to the contention of the applicants counsel that the review DPC constituted with three officers junior to the applicant, we directed on 28.09.2011 the respondents to file an affidavit. Our order is extracted below :-
One of the points strenuously urged by Mr. Behera, counsel representing the applicant, is that in the review DPC that was ordered by the competent authority and was held on 12.08.2010, three of the persons constituting the review DPC were erstwhile junior to the applicant and if in the review DPC, the applicant is to be promoted from the same date from which three junior persons were promoted, they will naturally become once again junior to the applicant. This, Mr. Behera says, would be clear from the minutes of the DPC meeting where even the names of three persons who constituted the DPC have been mentioned. Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel defending the respondents, would, however, state that this has not been specifically pleaded in the OA.
A crucial point as involved in present case and as urged by Mr. Behera, counsel representing the applicant, cannot be repelled only because such a pleading has not been made even though the record may reveal it to be true. However, in all fairness, Mr. Bhardwaj requests that respondents be given time to admit or deny the assertions made by Mr. Behera, counsel representing the applicant at the Bar as reflected above.
At this stage, Mr. Behera states that the three persons who constituted the review DPC and were erstwhile junior to the applicant are (i) Mr. Manbir Singh, Secretary (ER) 1976 Batch (2) Mr. Vivek Katju, Secretary (West)-1976 Batch; and (3) Ms. Vijalatha Reddy, Secretary (East) 1975 Batch. The respondents have filed an additional affidavit which reads as follows :-
With regard to the point raised by Shri Behera, Counsel, representing the applicant that the three persons who constituted the review DPC held on 12th August, 2010 were junior to the applicant, it is stated that DPC for the purpose of recommending empanelment of officers for promotion to the Grade-I, II and III of IFS shall be chaired by Foreign Secretary and comprise of the Committee of Secretaries in Ministry of External Affairs and Secretary (Personnel), DOPT as members.
Accordingly, the Review DPC which considered the applicants request for antedating her promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II comprised the Foreign Secretary as Chairperson and other Secretaries in the Ministry of External Affairs, namely, Shri Manbir Singh, Secretary (ER); Shri Vivek Katju, Secretary (West) and Ms. Vijaya Latha Reddy, Secretary (East), as members. As per the rules, Secretary, DOPT was also member of this Review DPC. This is to underline that all the members of the Review DPC held the rank of Secretary to Government of India whereas the applicant was in Grade-II of IFS, which is equivalent to the rank of Additional Secretary to Government of India. Therefore, the applicants argument that some of the members of the Review DPC were junior to her because of their year of joining the service holds no ground. In terms of extant regulations relating to the constitution of DPCs, the members of the DPC should be at least one step above the posts in which the promotions/confirmations is to be made, a condition fully met by the members of the Review DPC.
In view of the above, the grounds raised by Counsel for the applicant should be rejected. We have very thoughtfully considered the above issue in the light of the instructions/guidelines of DOP&T i.e. OM dated 10.4.1989 amended in OM dated 27.3.1997. The said guidelines envisage that in the case of Group A and B post to be filled by promotion, the Members included in the DPC should be officers who are at least one step above the posts to which promotion is to be made. The guidelines inter alia provides that the DPC shall be constituted as per the above provision for all posts except Secretary level posts. It is admitted fact that the applicant belongs to 1974 batch of IFS and has been in the post of Additional Secretary. For antedating the promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II (Additional Secretary) the DPC comprised of three Secretaries along with Foreign Secretary. They are Shri Manbir Singh (IFS-1976 batch) Shri Vivek Katju (IFS 1976 Batch) and Ms. Vijaya Latha Reddy (IFS 1975 Batch) and Foreign Secretary as Chairperson. Though three of them are in the rank of Secretary and one step ahead of Additional Secretary, in respect of their batch in IFS, they are definitely junior to the applicant (IFS 1974 batch). No doubt all of them are senior to her in the rank but the administrative propriety requires that officers senior to the applicant in IFS should have been Members in place of the above three officers. Though, no illegality has been committed but certainly prejudice has been caused as junior IFS officer sat in the DPC to decide the fate of their senior. Such an anomalous situation could have been avoided. The OM relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable in respect of constitution of DPC for considering her case for promotion to the post of Secretary.
17. After detailed analyses of the issues in aforesaid paragraphs, it is noticed that the appropriate available ACRs of the applicant have not been considered for her promotion to the rank of Secretary (IFS Grade-I), as a result of which, the marks secured by her being less than the desired bench marks, she could not be found fit. It must be noted here that non consideration of her available ACRs has vitiated the entire process and as such all the available ACRs as per the extant guidelines need to be re-examined and re-calculated to check whether the applicant is making the grade. Once the re-calculation is done and if the applicant makes the grade, she would be entitled to get promotion to the level of Secretary w.e.f. the date her batchmates were promoted. With regard to the antedating of her promotion to the level of Additional Secretary (IFS Grade-II), it is noted that the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet has already granted her the promotion but has not antedated from the date on which her batchmates were promoted to the said level. This in our considered opinion is not granting the applicant justice as her juniors have been promoted much before she was granted the promotion to the Additional Secretary grade. Further, the composition of DPC with the officers from the junior batch has positively prejudiced the applicant. In service matter, the juniority and seniority even in the same service does count. Three officers belonging to 1975/1976 batch sitting in the DPC to decide the fate of 1974 batch i.e. applicant, in our considered opinion has been administratively inappropriate. This deviation needs to be corrected when the fresh review DPC is constituted by putting such of those officers as the Member in the DPC who are not only senior in rank but also senior in the batch to the applicant.
18. In view of the above discussions and analysis of facts of the case, we are of considered opinion that prejudice has been caused to the applicant first by constituting the review DPC with officers, some of whom are junior to the applicant in IFS in so far as their batches are concerned; and secondly the available and admissible ACRs have not been taken into account while calculating the marks to be allotted for considering her promotion to Grade-I of IFS. Thus, we quash and set aside the decision of the Competent Authority in not granting her the relief to antedate her promotion to the Grade-II of IFS and not granting her Grade-I of IFS along with her batchmates. In the result, we direct the respondents to constitute a review DPC to consider the applicant for (a) promotion to Grade-II of the IFS with retrospective effect along with her batchmates, and (b) promotion to the Grade-I of the IFS for the panel year 2009-10. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the applicat is found fit and recommended to the IFS Grade-II and I posts, the ACC would consider the same and decide as expeditiously as possible. In case ACC approves her appointment as indicated above, she would be entitled to consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances and her retirement benefits including pension as per law.
19. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated above including the considered conclusion we have arrived on the issues, the Original Application having merits is allowed in terms of our above orders and directions. Resultantly the impugned orders and communications are quashed. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /rk/