Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dhirendra Kumar Sinha vs Rail India Technical And Economic ... on 9 August, 2021
1 o.a. 350.01344.2020 with m.a. 350.00061:2021 --) f CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA No. O.A. 350/01344/2020 Date of order: 9.8.2021 M.A. 350/00061/2021 Present *: o "Hon'ble Ms. Bicisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chaiterjee, Administrative Member Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Aged 62 years, © S/o. Late Shri Shiweshar Dayal, Joint General Manager (Retired), RITES. Limited, Kolkata. Resident of: NRC-011, DLF New Town Heighis, New Town, Action Area - Ill, Kolkata -- 700 135. Mobile No. : 9073399480 a. Applicant - VERSUS--- RITES Limited, Through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, RITES Bhawan, Plot No. 1, Sector -- 29" Gurgaon -- 122 001. i sees Respondents For the Applicant | : Mr. 1.2, Mohanty, Counsel For the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Das, Counsel Roe on 2 0.a, 350.01344.2020 with m.a. 350.00061.2021 ORDER (Oral)
f Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
Aggrieved by the marks awarded by the authorities in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report of 2013-14, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief:-
"T,
2.
8.
9. To allow the present Application;
To consequently quash and set aside the Marks Awarded by the Reviewing Authority fo the Applicant in the impugned Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2013-2014 [Annexure: A-1]. To consequently correct the Marks awarded by the Reviewing Authority to the applicant in the impugned Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2013-2014 [Annexure : A-1]} from 83.4 to at least 89.4; To consequently direct the Respondents to Review the Selection of the Applicant for the post Additional Director General (M&C} in terms of the corrected' Marks awarded fo the Applicant in the impugned Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2013-2014 [Annexure: A-1]:
To consequently promote the applicant to the post Additional: Director General (M&C} in view of such Review from the date the same was sve, if found suitable;
To grant all consequential benefits permissible under the Rules and .the Law in this regard, including arrears of salary and pensionary benefits:
To grant compound interest on the arrear payments to be made to the applicant:
To issue any such and further orders/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and To allow exemplary costs of the application in favour of the applicant."
2. Heard both Ld. Counsel, examined documents on record. This matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that-the applicant had joined as Assistant Director (Metallurgy) on 16.6.1995, and, thereafter, on
-4,5.2007 had joined RITES Limited as Deputy General Manager (M&C). He was promoted to the posts of Senior Deputy General Manager (M&C)and Joint General Manager {M&C} respectively, and, thereafter, was called fo appear before a Selection Committee on 16.11.2017 for appointment to the post of Additional General Manager (M&C). 4 3 oa. 350.01344.2020 with m.a. 350,00061.2021 candidate to be considered for promotion to the said post of Additional General Manager (M&C}, and, alfhough, he did attend the interview, the outcome was never made known jo him, and, accordingly, had approached this Tribunal in its Principal Bench in O.A. No. 100/00061/2018 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A.), which was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent authorities to communicate the outcome of the interview for promotion to the post of Additional General Manager (M&C) to the applicant.
communication at That, the authorities vide their thereafter, Annexure A-3 to the O.A., informed the applicant, that, as he could noi secure the qualifying marks, namely, 80% marks in aggregate, he could ot be recommended for selection as Additional General Manager (M&C} by"
the Selection Committee. The break up of the applicant's performance in the said selection was recorded as follows:-
The applicant is aggrieved thai, although he was the only - APARs Score Presentation Interview Total Marks Remarks last 5 years) (10) (30) (100) (60) 44 7 2] 72 Fail Thereafter, in response fo an RTI application of the applicant, his APAR scores were cisclosed on 3.5.2018 as follows:
Year APAR rating 2009 VG 2010 79.0 2011 85.5 2012 83.02 2013 67.0 2014 83.4 2015 80.3 2016 58.8 2017 80.65 2018 Yet to be finalized. On finalization of the APAR, the same will be disclosed to Shri D.K. Sinha. or 4 oa. 350.01344.2020 with m.a. 350.00061.2021 The applicant's Ld. Counsel admitted during hearing, that, for each reporting year, his APARs since 2009 had been duly conveyed to him by the respondent authorities and the applicant, having ascertained that his APAR scores for the last 5 years, being 44 as against the requisite score of 60, had prevented him from qualifying for selection to the post of « Additional General Manager (M&C), has approached this Tribunal for relief.
4, Although the applicant would cite the decision in O.A. No. (1973/2014 (Tushar Ranjan Mohanty v. Union of India & ors.}, we find that in the case of T.R. Mohanty (supra) the applicant had submitted a comprehensive representation against his adverse and below bench mark APARs. The instant applicant, however, despite the fact that he was communicated his APAR for the year 2013-2014 in due time, had not submitted any representation seeking improvement/upgradation of his APAR grades to the competent authority.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicant would refer to Annexure A-? to the O.A. in which the applicant had, on the one hand, preferred a representation on his APARs of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 respectively, but there is nothing on record to substantiate that he had represented for Upgrading his APAR ratings for his APAR of 201 3-2014.
6. In State Bank of India vs. A.P. Mathai, 1988 (4) SLR 94 (Bom), the Hon'ble Apex Court had ruled that the proper course would be to direct "the competent authority to dispose of the representation and depending on the result thereof to reconsider the action taken. bee, a 5 o.a. 350.01344.2020 with m.a. 350.00061.2021 In Gunjan Prasad v. Government of India [MANU/CA/0278/2015], the Tribunal held as under:
" The disposal of the representation must be made in a quasi judicial manner by a reasoned order on due application of mind."
7. Accordingly, we would dispose of this O.A. at the admission stage itself, by according liberty to the applicant to prefer a reasoned "
representation to the competent authority justifying his request for upgrading of his APAR, if so required, for the reporting year 2013-2014 within a period of 4.weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once so received, the competent authority shall decide on such representation, in accordance with law, and upon an objective review of his APAR gradings, convey such decision to the applicant, within a period
- of 6 weeks thereafter.
8. Further, we make if clear that we have not entered into the merits of the matter and the respondents are at liberty to decide on the issues raised in accordance with law.
9. With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs. M.A. bearing .No. 350/00061/2021 is disposed of accordingly. . ae (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member SP