Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr B S Rajpurohit vs Department Of Animal Husbandry Of ... on 18 November, 2024
1
Item No. 49/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 2742/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2742/2023
This day of 18th November of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati
Khati, Member (A)
Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit, Aged-68
Aged 68 Years,
S/o Sh. Madan Singh Retired as Director (Joint
Commissioner) From Department of Animal Husbandry of
Dairying, New Delhi. R/oB-406,
406, Kanchanjunga Tower,
Sector 56, Gurugram-122011
122011 (Har).
Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
V/s
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of
Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of
Animal Husbandry of Dairying, Govt. of India, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Delhi
2. The Joint Secretary (Admn.&Trade), Department of
Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Govt. of India,
KrishiBha
KrishiBhawan, New Delhi-110001.
110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S.N. Verma)
2
Item No. 49/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 2742/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) By virtue of the present resent OA, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2020 (Annexure A/1) only in respect of the present applicant and only to the extent by which the applicant has been granted his financial upgradation in Grade Pay of Rs. 8700 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 instead oof 25.8.2006 under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme along with similarly situated and junior persons and order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure A/2), declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to grant the 3rd promotion to the applicant under DACP Scheme w.e.f. 25.8.2006 after ignoring the ACR of the year 2002-03 2002 03 with all consequential benefits with arrears of difference of pay and allowanc allowances and revision of retirement benefits with interest at an early date.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order quashing the impugned ACR of the year 2001 2001-02, and consequently pass an order directing the respondents not to consider the same for any purpose including while considering for promotion.
(iii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to finalise the case of the applicant for granting 4rd promotion under DACP scheme form the date of completion of 13 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 10,000/10,000/-
from due date with all consequential benefits with/arrears of difference of pay and allowances and revision of retirement benefits with interest at an early date.
(iv) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant highlights that the Dynamic Assured Career Progres Progression Scheme (DACP) came into effect on 25.08.2006 for Medical Officers in the respondent department, following the recommendations and approval of the 3 Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023 Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) vide Office Order dated 24.07.2022.
3. Learned earned counsel for the respondents, based on instructions, produced the records that the DPC meeting held on 22.06.2020 was conducted through the circulation of papers, papers the he purpose of which was to consider the promotion of retired Veterinary Officers under the DACP Scheme, without linkage to vacancy. Learned counsel further submitted that based on the assessment as indicated in Annexure A/1, the Committee recommended certain officers under the DACP Scheme as follows:
S.No. Name & Date of Promoted to the post in the Grade Pay and date Designation signation regular of promotion on the date service in of entry Assistant Deputy Joint retirement Grade Pay Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner (Dr.) Rs. 5400/ (AC) (PB-3: (DC) (PB (PB-3: (JC) (PB-4:
Rs. 6600 GP: Rs. 6600) GP: Rs. 7600) GP: Rs. 8700) (PB-3 Rs.
15,600- 39100) 1 K.S. GP 25.08.2006 25.08.2006 -
Sangwan, Rs.5400
LO 01.01.1996
30.09.2012
2 N. GP - 25.08.2006 25.08.2006
Rajeswar Rs.6600
Rao, AC 06.11.1992
(SC)
07.10.2014
(expired)
3 B.S. GP - 25.08.2006 01.04.2008
Rajpurohit, Rs.6600
DC 30.01.1991
31.01.2016
4
Item No. 49/ C-5
C
O.A. No. 2742/2023
3 S.K. Panda, GP - 25.08.2006 25.08.2006
DC Rs.6600
30.04.2007 25.05.1989
4 P.K. Panda, GP - 25.08.2006 01.04.2012
AC Rs.6600
30.09.2015 09.03.1994
5. J.N. Bora, GP - 25.08.2006 25.08.2006
DC (ST) Rs.6600
30.09.2011 27.02.1992
6. R.P. GP - 25.08.2006 01.04.2010
Srivastava, Rs.5400
AC 01.01.1996
31.12.2014
4. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2002-2003, 2003, which was below the benchmark, was never communicated to the applicant. This non-communication non communication impacted the applicant's promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, which was granted on 01.04.2008 1.04.2008 instead of 25.08.2006 i.e., the relevan relevant date when one Sh. N. Rajeswar Rao, a candidate belonging to the SC category, was accorded promotion. Had the applicant been given an opportunity to challenge the adverse entries in the APAR, he could have represented his case in time in accordance with the t law.5
Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023
5. It is undisputed that Sh. S.K. Panda and Sh. P.K. Panda were promoted to the post of Joint Commissioner on 25.08.2006. It is also not in dispute that the applicant retired on 31.01.2016, whereas Sh. S.K. Panda, who was junior to the applicant as per per the order dated 24.07.2020, retired earlier, on 30.04.2007.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Relevant paragraph of the same read as under:-
"4) It is not in dispute that the CAT, Patna Bench passed an order recommending the authority not to rely on the order of caution dated 22.09.1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 09.06.1998. In view of the said order, one obstacle relating to his promotion promotion goes. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of 'good' should have been communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non non-
communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-communication non communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view ha has been reiterated in the above referred decision relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.
5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the officer who was immediately junior in service to the appellant was given promotion on 28.08.2000. Therefore, the appellant also be deemed to have been given promotion from 28.08.2000. Since the appellant had retired from service, we make it clear that he is not entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not not worked in the Higher Administrative Grade Group-A, Group A, but his retrospective promotion 6 Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023 from 28.08.2000 shall be considered for the benefit of re re- fixation of his pension and other retrial benefits as per rules."
7. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon on the averments made in the counter counter-reply, particularly upon paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5:-
5:
"The he present OA is filed by the applicant against the Order dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure A/1 of OA) issued by the Respondents (Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying) granting promotion under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) to the applicant, along with other similarly situated veterinarians, in the Grade Pay of Rs.8700/-
Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 01.04.2008, instead of 25.08.2006, and also order order dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure A/2 of the OA) by which his representation dated 24.07.2020 has been rejected.
3. The he DACP scheme, which is a time bound promotion without linkage to vacancies in particular grade, has been implemented for Veterinarians in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide its Order dated 14.10.2014 in WP(C) No.2780/2011 titled as Dr. C.S. Sahukar Vs Union of India, has the effective date of implementation up to the level of NFSG (Director level) w.e.f.
w.e.f. 25.08.2006 and up to the level of SAG (JS level) w.e.f. 29.10.2008. The DACP is to be granted to the veterinarians in Level 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the pay matrix after completion of 4, 5, 4 and 7 years of regular service in Level 10, 11, 12 and 13 respect respectively.
4. The he DACP Scheme covers all Group 'A' veterinary posts with entry level in GP 5400 (Level-10 (Level 10 in Pay Matrix as per VII CPC) having B.V Sc as minimum essential qualification with registration in VCI. To implement the DACP Scheme, the Department framed framed the new RRS assimilating the features of DACP Scheme and all posts both at Headquarters and in field offices, which fulfilled the criteria to be categorized as Veterinary Posts were included in the common RRs namely "Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Veterinary Posts Recruitment Rules, 2020" which were notified on 05.02.2020, for giving promotion under the Scheme. The RRs pertaining to the post of Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner provide promotion as method oof recruitment without linkage to vacancies as under: -
Name of the post Provision given in the RRs Joint Commissioner Deputy Commissioner in Level Level-12 (Rs.78800 (Rs.78800-209200) in the pay matrix with four years regular service in the grade.
Deputy Commissioner Assistant Commissioner in Level Level-11 (Rs.67700 (Rs.67700-208700) in the pay matrix with five years regular service in the grade.
Assistant Commissioner Livestock Officer in Level Level-10 (Rs.56100 (Rs.56100-177500) in the pay matrix with four years regular service in the grade.7
Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023
5. The he applicant, Dr. B.S. Rajpurohit was initially appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 3000 4500 (corresponding to GP 6600 as per VI CPC) w.e.f. 30.01.1991 and was considered for promotion under the DACP Scheme in GP of Rs.7600/-
Rs.7600/ and Rs.8700/- w.e.f. 25.08.2006 2006 (date of implementation of DACP Scheme) by virtue of having completed the requisite eligibility service of 9 years on that date i.e. 5 years for promotion from GP 6600 to GP 7600, and four years for promotion from GP 7600 to GP 8700."
8. Learned earned counsel for the respondents further argue argues that since the applicant retired on 31.01.2016, the question of communicating the APAR doess not arise. Additionally, it is is contended that the DoP DoP&T OM dated 13.04.2010, which mandates the communication of APARs, applies prospectively and, therefore, does not affect the present case, which pertains to the year 2002-2003.
2002 Learned counsel emphasized that the said OM is applicable to serving employees and not to those who have already superannuated. Moreover, since the Report Reporting Officer has also retired, the question of reconsidering the applicant's case for promotion to Joint Commissioner as of 25.08.2006 does not arise.
9. It is contended that the applicant's case was considered by the DPC in 2020 based on the records available at that time. Learned counsel for the respondents also points point out that the Reporting Officer had initially rated the applicant as 'Very Good,' but the Reviewing Officer downgraded it to 'Good.'
10. Learned earned counsel for the applicant state states that only after an RTI dated 08.06.2023, when the promotion order was issued, the applicant became aware that he was promoted as Joint Commissioner on 01.04.2008, while Mr. S.K. Panda received the promoti promotion from the implementation date i.e., 25.08.2006. Since ince the adverse remarks by the 8 Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023 Reviewing Officer were never communicated to the applicant be filed an RTI application on 01.05.2023, which reads as follows:
"The copy of ACR for 2002-03 2002 and 2003-04 04 are not provided till date. You are requested to provide me certified copy of my ACR for 2002-03 2002 and 2003-04."
11. The APARs for 2002-2003 2002 2003 were eventually communicated to the applicant. Learned earned counsel for the applicant has also drawn attention to the remarks made by the Reviewing Officer.
Officer
12. It is also on record that no opportunity was given to the applicant to represent or appeal against the adverse remarks made by the Reviewing Officer.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. Analysis:
14.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the facts remain undisputed. It is a matter of record that copies of the ACRs for 2002 2002-
2003 were not provided until the information was obtained through an RTI dated 08.06.2023. We have already highlighted the Reviewing Officer's remarks in detail. It is also a matter of record that the DACP Scheme came into effect on 25.08.2006 following litigation in WP (C) No. 2780/2011.
15. Upon perusal of the factual matrix detailed above, it is a well- settled law, as reiterated in the decision rendered in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra), that even though there is no legal mandate under the Circular dated 13.04.2010 for prior communication of APARs in the 9 Item No. 49/ C-5 C O.A. No. 2742/2023 context of the years 2002-2003, 2002 2003, the applicant retired on 31.01.2016, and there was no communication of the APAR for the relev relevant period.
16. It is evident that the DPC, which held its meeting on 22.06.2020, should have verified whether the adverse entries were communicated to the applicant and in in the absence of such communication, the adverse entries should have been disregarded for consideration for promotion. The APARs on record show that, apart from the 2002 2002-2003 period, the applicant's ratings were either 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding.'
17. Conclusion:
17.1. In view of the above, the action of not communicating the adverse entries is liable to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, we allow this OA, setting aside the impugned order to the extent that it affected the applicant's financial upgradation. The order ddated 20.10.2022 is also quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents to convene a review DPC and issue appropriate orders, disregarding the un un-communicated entries by the Reviewing Officer. Consequential reliefs shall follow thereof.. This order is to be be implemented within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order..
18. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
(Dr. Dr. Anand S Khati) Khati (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /arti/