Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Daleep K.Singh I.T.S vs Union Of India Through on 28 November, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA NO.1368/2006 New Delhi, this the 28th day of November, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) Sh. Daleep K.Singh I.T.S. Dy. General Manager O/o the G.M.T.D. Bharatpur (Raj.) Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. D.P.Sharma) V E R S U S 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Communication and I.T. Department of Telecommunication Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Sh. Satish K.Oberai (Staff No.2212) I.T.S. (SAG) Through Secretary Department of Telecom, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. T.C.Gupta and Sh. A.K.Singh) O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman Shri Daleep K.Singh, Dy. General Manager with Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department of Telecommunication has filed this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade of Group A .
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant is an officer of 1979 recruitment year. He belongs to Scheduled Caste category and was appointed in the ITS cadre w.e.f. 6.7.1981. He was promoted in Senior Time Scale of Group A officers in the year 1989 and was subsequently allowed ad hoc promotion in JAG as Director/Dy. G.M. w.e.f. November 1994 and thereafter from Senior Time Scale Group A to JAG Grade on regular basis vide order dated 21.08.2001. On completion of 13 years of service he was allowed Selection Grade in JAG Cadre with retrospective effect i.e. November 1994. However, ad hoc promotion in SAG based on seniority basis was not allowed to the applicant while persons junior to him were allowed promotion vide order dated 7.1.2002. It is the case of the applicant that no disciplinary proceeding or vigilance case was pending or contemplated against him at that time.
3. Aggrieved by his non-promotion, applicant made representation dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure A-5) to which he has got no reply from the respondents. Respondents issued select list of regular promotion of Group A officers to SAG without including the name of the applicant. The case of the applicant is that no adverse entry so far has been communicated to him nor any vigilance or disciplinary case was pending against him. That being so, there was no occasion to ignore him in the matter of promotion. Applicant also made representation on 31.07.2003 which too remained unanswered.
4. In the circumstances mentioned above, present Application has been filed for the relief already indicated above. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and filed the counter reply contesting the cause of the applicant. It has inter alia been stated in the counter reply that applicant has been considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 21.12.2001 for promotion to SAG of ITS Group A on ad hoc basis and was assessed as Unfit. He was subsequently considered by the DPCs held in June/July 2003, December 2004 and February 2006 for regular promotion to SAG of ITS Group A for the vacancy years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively and was assessed as unfit by all the DPCs. Applicant thus could not be promoted to SAG of ITS Group A. The promotion from JAG to SAG is done on the basis of selection and benchmark for promotion to SAG is Very Good. Representation dated 31.07.2003 of the applicant was duly considered by the competent authority in consultation with the DOP&T and CGM Karnataka Telecom Circle vide letter dated 29.09.2003 requested to inform the position to the applicant. His case was again considered by the Government in pursuance to the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA-597/2006 and a speaking order was passed on 13.03.2006 which was delivered to the applicant through CGM, Rajasthan Telecom Circle. The applicant indeed had come to this Tribunal at earlier point of time seeking the same relief in OA-597/2006 decided on 13.03.2006 wherein a direction was given to the respondents to treat the OA as a representation made by the applicant for redressal of his grievances and to pass a speaking order thereon within a period of 4 weeks. Applicant was given liberty to file a fresh petition if any grievance survives. Pursuant to directions issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2006 which reads as follows:-
Subject: O.A.NO. 597/2006 filed by Shri Daleep K Singh in CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
In compliance of the judgment dated 13.03.2006 of the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the O.A. No. 597/2006 filed by you, your case has been examined in this office by the Competent Authority.
2. It is for your information that you were initially considered for ad hoc promotion to SAG alongwith your juniors by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 21.12.2001 and was assessed UNFIT. You were again considered by the subsequent DPCs held in the UPSC for regular promotion to SAG as per details given below:-
__________________________________________________________________ Sl Vacancy year Date of DPC Recommendations of the No. DPC based on overall assessment of service record ________________________________________________________________________
1. 2003-04 29th June, 1st & 2nd July 2003 UNFIT ________________________________________________________________________
2. 2004-05 22nd & 23rd December 2004 UNFIT ________________________________________________________________________
3. 2005-06 21st February 2006 UNFIT ________________________________________________________________________
3. An officer has only a right to be properly considered by the DPC, which is an independent expert body on the matter. DPC makes its recommendations on the basis of overall assessment of an officer based on his service records. DPC may or may not concur with the overall grading given in order to get promotion to the SAG, an officer has to acquire the required Benchmark as Selection method is applied for promotion to SAG. There is no provision/instruction in the Government to communicate ACRs assessed below benchmark by the DPC. Further, recommendation of DPC is received as FIT or UNFIT only.
It is, therefore, for your information that DPC has considered and given the recommendations based on overall assessment of your ACRs for promotion to SAG as per your legitimate rights. In terms of the statutory Recruitment Rules of ITS Group A (1992), promotion to SAG can be effected as per the recommendations of the DPC to this effect.
Receipt may kindly be acknowledged.
5. From the impugned order mentioned above, it is clear that the applicant was assessed as unfit as he did not have the required benchmark for selection which, it is stated, was Very Good. The respondents have the records with them and Sh. T.C.Gupta, after checking the records, states that the confidential reports of the applicant from 1996-97 to 2004-05 were as follows:-
1996-97 - Average 1997-98 - Very Good 1998-99 - Below Average/modified to average 1999-2000 - Very Good 2000-2001 - Good 2001-2002 - Good 2002-2003 - Good 2003-2004 - Good 2004-2005 - Good
6. It is clearly made out from the facts as given above that the applicant, for number of years, did not have the confidential reports which would make him fit for promotion, the bench mark being Very Good. It is not in dispute that these below benchmark reports were never communicated to the applicant, thus depriving him from making representation to the respondents against such reports. In a Full Bench consisting of five members, we have taken a view that below benchmark reports have to be communicated to the concerned employee. The same precise view was taken by Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, 2008 (7) SCALE 403.
7. In view of the observations made above, this Application is partly allowed. We direct the respondents to communicate to the applicant within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order all his reports which have been below the benchmark. The applicant may make representation against the said reports within a month thereafter. Respondents would consider the representation made thereafter and pass orders thereon preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation made by the applicant. In the event, the applicant may have the requisite bench mark for any of the vacancies considered during three DPCs mentioned in the impugned order, the review DPC shall be constituted to consider his case accordingly.
( L.K. JOSHI ) ( V.K. BALI ) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman sd