Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Dr Babu Ram vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 21 May, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 797/2021
Reserved on:- 15.12.2025
Pronounced on: - 21.05.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Babu Ram, Age- 70 years,
S/o Sh. Dheru Ram,
R/o F-234, Raipur Satwari,
Jammu Cantonment, Jammu-180003.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Adv.)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Health & Family
Welfare, CHS-II, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110022.
2. Director General of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
3. Member (P) Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
4. Chief Post Master General, J&K Postal Circle, Jammu-180001.
5. Director of Accounts, (Department of Posts), Jammu-180001.
6. Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, CHS II Section, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110011.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld. Sr. C.G.S.C.)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) to quash order no. C.17011/02/2020-CHS-II dated 31-12-2020 issued by respondent no. 06 (Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare) by which CGHS, Chandigarh was directed to forward the ACR of petitioner (Dr. Babu Ram) and also to furnish the requisite information in respect of petitioner (Dr. Babu Ram), by issuance of writ of Certiorari;
b) to issue directions to the respondents to release and grant the benefit of Non-Functional upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade in favour of the petitioner and to give similar treatment as has been given to the similarly situated persons and even juniors to the petitioner by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
c) to issue directions to the respondents to implement the
provisions of Office Memorandum No. A.45011/37/2017-CHS II (pt.) dated 17-09-2018 and Office Memorandum no.
A.45011/53/2017-CHS-II dated 13-10-2017 by which clarification issued for grant and release of benefit of Non- Functional upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade, by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
d) to issue directions to the respondents to produce the whole record of the SAG Officers who have been given the benefit of non-functional upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade in view of Government policy decision by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
e) to declare the act of the respondents by which the respondents have sent the case of petitioner to CGHS Chandigarh/Jammu without appreciating that the CGHS Chandigarh/Jammu have no concern with the case of the petitioner as the petitioner was getting salary and is now getting pension from Department of Post, Jammu as ultra-virus, unconstitutional, arbitrary, unjust HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 and contrary to the provisions of law, provisions of Principle of Natural Justice and also contrary to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution by issuance of writ of Mandamus;
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Dr. Babu Ram, aged about 70 years, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order No. C.17011/02/2020-CHS-II dated 31.12.2020 issued by respondent No. 6, whereby the matter relating to his claim for grant of Non-Functional Upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade was referred for obtaining ACR/APAR-related information. The applicant has further sought a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade, allegedly on the same lines as granted to similarly situated persons and juniors.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
b) The case of the applicant is that he was initially appointed in
the Central Health Services under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 12.12.1977. During the course of service, he was promoted to the Supertime Administrative Grade vide order dated 28.11.2008 and was thereafter posted as Additional Director, CGHS, Jammu vide order dated 23.12.2008.
According to the applicant, though such posting order was issued, he was never relieved to join the said post and continued to serve in the Postal Department, Jammu, after upgradation of the post to SAG.
c) The applicant retired from service on 30.04.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is pleaded that he discharged his duties efficiently and to the satisfaction of his superiors and that no adverse material was ever communicated to him during the relevant period.
d) The applicant states that the Government of India took a policy decision to grant the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation to SAG/HAG level in respect of retired officers of all sub-cadres HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 of the Central Health Services, including the GDMO, Teaching, Non-Teaching and Public Health sub-cadres. It is further stated that the Government also clarified that vigilance clearance would not be insisted upon in the case of retired officers drawing full pension.
e) According to the applicant, his name figured at Serial No. 20 in the updated list of SAG Officers in the GDMO Sub-Cadre of CHS as on 01.12.2009. The applicant submits that various orders were issued by the Government of India granting Non- Functional Upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade to several officers of the General Duty Medical Officers Sub- Cadre, including persons similarly situated and even juniors to him.
f) The applicant alleges that despite being fully eligible, his case was not considered and the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation to HAG was not released in his favour. He submitted a representation dated 11.03.2018 requesting grant of the said benefit, asserting that juniors and officers belonging to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 later batches had already been granted such upgradation. He thereafter submitted reminders/representations dated 02.07.2018, 27.09.2018, 09.04.2019 and 27.06.2019, but no final decision was taken by the respondents.
g) The applicant also served a legal notice dated 02.12.2019 upon the respondents. Thereafter, he approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 61/1002/2020, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.2020 with a direction to the respondents to treat the legal notice as a representation and to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period.
h) In purported compliance of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 6 issued order dated 31.12.2020 stating that the applicant had been considered for grant of NFU to HAG level with effect from 03.12.2009 in the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 05.01.2017. However, his assessment was deferred on account of non-availability of his ACR for the year 2005-06 and below benchmark grading in his ACR for the year 2006-07.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 The order further stated that the matter had been referred to the APAR Cell and that the ACR/APAR-related formalities were required to be completed before his case could be considered further.
i) The grievance of the applicant is that instead of deciding his claim on merits, the respondents referred the matter to CGHS, Chandigarh/Jammu, though according to him, those authorities had no concern with his service record, as he had retired from the Postal Dispensary, Jammu under the administrative control of the Department of Posts. He submits that the Postal Dispensary was merged with CGHS only after his retirement and, therefore, any information, if required, ought to have been obtained from the Department of Posts or the Chief Post Master General, J&K Circle.
j) The applicant further contends that he had already forwarded his ACR forms for the relevant years to the competent authorities. According to him, ACR forms for 2005-06 were sent to the Chief Post Master General, J&K Circle, under HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 intimation to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Similarly, ACR forms for 2006-07 were also forwarded after self-appraisal to the reporting authority under intimation to the Ministry.
k) It is also pleaded by the applicant that he was granted NFSG-
SAG with effect from 03.01.2006 vide order dated 17.08.2016 and no deficiency regarding ACRs was raised at that stage. He therefore submits that the respondents cannot now rely upon alleged non-availability or below benchmark grading in ACRs to deny him the benefit of NFU to HAG.
l) The applicant relies upon Office Memorandum dated 13.10.2017, whereby it was clarified that Non-Functional Upgradation is not a promotion but merely a financial upgradation and does not alter the status of the officer except in relation to pay benefits. He also relies upon Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2018, whereby it was clarified that vigilance clearance may not be insisted upon for grant of NFU HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 to SAG/HAG level in respect of retired CHS officers drawing full pension.
m) The applicant, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as similarly situated officers and juniors have been granted the benefit while his claim has been deferred without any legally sustainable reason.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed their written statement opposing the Original Application. At the outset, they have raised preliminary objections that the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is also pleaded that the applicant has concealed material facts and that the Original Application is not maintainable in the form in which it has been filed.
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 61/1002/2020 before this Tribunal and, in HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 compliance with the directions issued therein, his representation was considered and disposed of vide Ministry's order dated 31.12.2020. According to the respondents, the said order clearly explained the reasons for deferment of his case for grant of NFU to HAG level.
c) The respondents state that for considering the applicant's case for grant of NFU to HAG level with effect from 03.12.2009, his ACRs for the relevant period were required to be assessed by the Screening Committee in accordance with the applicable DoPT guidelines relating to Departmental Promotion Committees and grant of Non-Functional Upgradation. The Screening Committee, however, deferred his assessment due to non-availability of ACR for the year 2005-06 and below benchmark grading in the ACR for the year 2006-07.
d) It is further submitted that the ACR for the year 2006-07 was forwarded to the Department of Posts for disclosure to the applicant so that he could make a representation, if any, against the below benchmark grading in terms of DoPT instructions HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 dated 13.04.2010. The Department of Posts was also requested to forward the missing ACR of the applicant for the year 2005- 06.
e) The respondents submit that since the Postal Dispensaries were subsequently merged with CGHS and CGHS Jammu came under the administrative control of CGHS Chandigarh, information regarding APAR/ACR was sought both from the Department of Posts as well as CGHS Chandigarh. The respondents deny that the reference to CGHS Chandigarh was illegal or arbitrary.
f) The respondents rely upon DoPT O.M. dated 24.04.2009, FAQ dated 01.08.2012 and updated guidelines dated 06.09.2022 to contend that the grant of NFU is subject to fulfilment of all prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms, including the required benchmark for upgradation to the particular grade. According to the respondents, NFU is not an automatic benefit and the concerned officer has to satisfy the prescribed benchmark at the time of screening.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
g) It is further pleaded that under the applicable CHS Rules, the
eligibility criteria for promotion to HAG level required Supertime Grade officers to have completed the prescribed length of regular service in the relevant grade. The respondents submit that, for the 1977 batch, NFU to HAG was due with effect from 03.12.2009, but the applicant was not eligible as on the crucial date of 01.01.2009 for the vacancy year 2009-10. According to the respondents, the applicant became eligible only for the subsequent vacancy year 2010-11 and could be considered with effect from 01.04.2010.
h) For consideration of the applicant's case with effect from 01.04.2010, the reckonable APAR years were 2004-05 to 2008-
09. The respondents state that the applicant's APAR grading for 2004-05 was "Very Good", the ACR for 2005-06 was not available, the grading for 2006-07 was "Good", and the gradings for 2007-08 and 2008-09 were "Very Good". Since the benchmark required for grant of NFU to HAG was "Very HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 Good", the grading of "Good" for the year 2006-07 was below benchmark.
i) The respondents further submit that the Ministry again requested the Department of Posts and CGHS Chandigarh vide O.Ms. dated 08.04.2024 and 09.05.2024 to furnish either the ACR for the year 2005-06 or a No Report Certificate, and also to furnish the representation, if any, submitted by the applicant against the below benchmark grading for 2006-07 along with the decision taken thereon.
j) It is admitted by the respondents that the vigilance status of the applicant has been received from the Department of Posts as well as the Vigilance Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and that the applicant is clear from the vigilance angle. However, according to the respondents, vigilance clearance alone is not sufficient for grant of NFU, as the applicant is still required to satisfy the prescribed benchmark in the relevant APARs.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
k) The respondents have specifically denied the applicant's
contention that ACRs/APARs have no role in grant of NFU. They submit that even though NFU is non-functional and does not amount to regular promotion, the DoPT guidelines mandate fulfilment of all promotional norms, including benchmark, at the time of screening.
l) The respondents therefore maintain that the applicant's case cannot be finalized unless the deficiencies relating to his ACR/APAR record are completed. They submit that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed at this stage and that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The applicant, Dr. Babu Ram, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order No. C.17011/02/2020-CHS-II dated 31.12.2020 issued by respondent No. 6 and for issuance of directions HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 to the respondents to grant him the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation to Higher Administrative Grade, allegedly on the same lines as granted to similarly situated persons and juniors.
6. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the period of limitation for filing an Original Application before this Tribunal. Ordinarily, an application is required to be filed within one year from the date on which the final order has been made or from the date on which the cause of action arose.
7. In the present case, the applicant retired from service on 30.04.2010.
The benefit claimed by him relates to Non-Functional Upgradation to HAG level, which according to him ought to have been granted either with effect from 03.12.2009 or at least from the relevant subsequent date. The claim is thus essentially connected with his service position prior to retirement and the financial consequences flowing therefrom.
8. The applicant did not approach the Tribunal within the prescribed period. Even according to his own pleadings, the representations were made much later, beginning from 11.03.2018. Thus, there is a HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 substantial and unexplained delay between the date of retirement/cause of action and the first effective pursuit of remedy. The present O.A. has been filed in 2021, i.e., more than a decade after the applicant's retirement.
9. The law is well settled that repeated representations do not extend limitation. A stale claim cannot be revived merely by submitting successive representations or by obtaining an order directing consideration of such representation. When the original cause of action is old and barred by limitation, the passing of an order on a representation does not give rise to a fresh cause of action so as to overcome the statutory bar.
10. The earlier O.A. No. 61/1002/2020 was disposed of by the Tribunal only with a direction to the respondents to consider the legal notice/representation of the applicant. Such an order did not adjudicate the claim of the applicant on merits, nor did it condone the delay in raising the substantive claim. The order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the respondents in compliance of the said direction cannot HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 be treated as creating a fresh cause of action in respect of a claim which had already become stale.
11. The applicant has not placed on record any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay in approaching the Tribunal. No sufficient cause has been shown as to why the applicant remained inactive for several years after retirement and after the alleged denial of benefit. In service matters, delay assumes significance because settled service and financial positions cannot be reopened after long lapse of time, particularly when such reopening may affect administrative finality and records of past years.
12. The plea of discrimination on the ground that juniors or similarly situated persons were granted the benefit also does not assist the applicant in overcoming limitation. Even if such benefit was granted to others, the applicant was required to approach the competent forum within the prescribed period. A claim based on parity must also be raised within limitation. Article 14 cannot be invoked to defeat statutory limitation or to revive a dead claim. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the present Original Application is barred by HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Though the O.A. deserves dismissal on the ground of delay and limitation, we have also considered the matter on merits to satisfy ourselves whether any manifest illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents.
13. The respondents have explained that the applicant's case for grant of NFU to HAG level was considered by the Screening Committee. However, his assessment was deferred due to non-availability of ACR for the year 2005-06 and below benchmark grading in ACR for the year 2006-07. The respondents have further stated that the ACR for 2006-07 was forwarded to the Department of Posts for disclosure to the applicant for making representation, if any, against the below benchmark grading in terms of DoPT instructions. The Department of Posts was also requested to forward the ACR for 2005-06.
14. The respondents have placed reliance upon the DoPT instructions governing grant of Non-Functional Upgradation. As per the stand of the respondents, all prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms, including benchmark, are required to be fulfilled while HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 considering an officer for grant of NFU to a particular grade. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that ACRs/APARs have no role whatsoever in the matter of grant of NFU cannot be accepted. No doubt, NFU is described as a non-functional financial upgradation and does not amount to regular promotion. However, that by itself does not mean that the prescribed eligibility conditions and benchmark can be ignored. The very scheme relied upon by the respondents requires consideration by a Screening Committee and fulfilment of the applicable norms. Hence, the respondents cannot be faulted for insisting upon completion of APAR/ACR formalities.
15. The applicant has also challenged the action of the respondents in seeking information from CGHS Chandigarh/Jammu. The respondents have explained that the Postal Dispensaries were merged with CGHS and CGHS Jammu came under the administrative control of CGHS Chandigarh. Information was sought from the Department of Posts as well as CGHS Chandigarh in order to complete the applicant's APAR/ACR record. Such correspondence, in our view, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It does not finally reject the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 claim of the applicant but merely seeks to complete the record required for consideration. The order dated 31.12.2020 records the relevant reason for deferment of the applicant's case. It states that the assessment was deferred due to non-availability of ACR for 2005-06 and below benchmark ACR for 2006-07 and that the applicant may be considered after completion of ACR formalities. The order, therefore, cannot be termed as a non-speaking or mechanical order. The applicant has also argued that he was granted NFSG-SAG and, therefore, the respondents could not raise objection regarding the same ACRs at the stage of consideration for HAG. This contention is not acceptable. The grant of one benefit at a prior stage does not automatically establish entitlement to another higher grade, particularly when the higher grade requires separate screening and fulfilment of the prescribed benchmark for the relevant period.
16. The applicant has further relied upon the clarification that vigilance clearance may not be insisted upon for retired officers drawing full pension. The respondents have, in fact, stated that the applicant is clear from the vigilance angle. The issue in the present case is not HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: O.A. No. 797/2021 vigilance clearance but incomplete/deficient APAR record and below benchmark grading. Therefore, the said clarification does not advance the applicant's case. Thus, even on merits, we find no illegality in the action of the respondents in deferring the applicant's claim pending completion of ACR/APAR formalities. The applicant has failed to establish any enforceable right for grant of NFU/HAG without satisfying the prescribed benchmark and procedural requirements.
17. From the above discussion, the following findings are recorded:
a) The applicant retired on 30.04.2010, whereas the present O.A. has been filed in 2021, after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
b) The claim for NFU/HAG relates to a period much prior to the filing of the present O.A. and is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
c) Repeated representations, legal notice and the order dated 31.12.2020 passed pursuant to the earlier direction of this Tribunal do not revive the stale claim of the applicant.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
d) The respondents have furnished a plausible explanation that the applicant's case was deferred due to non-availability of ACR for 2005-06 and below benchmark grading in ACR for 2006- 07.
e) NFU, though non-functional and financial in nature, is still subject to fulfilment of eligibility criteria and promotional norms, including benchmark, as per the applicable instructions.
f) The applicant has failed to establish that the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 suffers from arbitrariness, illegality or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present Original Application is hopelessly barred by delay and limitation. The applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for approaching the Tribunal after such a long lapse of time. The claim sought to be raised is stale and cannot be entertained by this Tribunal at this belated stage.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: O.A. No. 797/2021
19. Even otherwise, on merits, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order dated 31.12.2020, as the respondents have not finally rejected the claim of the applicant but have only stated that his case may be considered after completion of the requisite ACR/APAR formalities.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV