Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Archana Lakra vs Steel Sail on 19 June, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 19.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Archana Lakra, aged about 36 years, D/o Sri
Francis Lakra, Resident of 971, Saket Extension
Champa Nagar Manegwan Ranjjhi, Dist-Jabalur
(M.P) now working as Deputy Manager SAIL Steel
Authority of India Limited, Odisha.
......Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India, represented through its Director,
Steel Authority of India Limited Rourkela, At/P.O-
Rourkela, Dist- Sundargarh, Odisha.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. A.Swain, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. H.M.Dhal, Mr. G.C.Sahu, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
In this case, it is not in dispute that promotion from E-2 to E-3 under the SAIL/Respondents is governed by a set of rules wherein it has been provided as under:
"6.3.2 For promotion from E-2 to E-3 grade An executive in E-2 grade shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to E-3 grade; subject to following:2 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
a) The executive is having minimum of 3 years' service in the E-2 grade.
b) He/she possesses a minimum qualification of Graduation/Diploma in Engineering or equivalent.
c) The executive has qualified the mandatory "On- Line Test" during the eligibility period.
d) He/she has earned 110 Credit Points on the basis of his/her appraisal ratings in the grade. The credit points will be regulated as prescribed in the Rules.
He/she will be promoted, if found suitable by the DPC; subject to Department Clearance and Vigilance Clearance."
2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was promoted to E-2 grade on 30.06.2019. She was due for promotion to E-3 on 30.06.2022. She had acquired all the eligibility conditions for consideration for promotion from E-2 to E-3. Her case was considered with other eligible officers. But, she was not given promotion while promotions were given to others in E-3 case. Her case w.e.f. 30.06.2022. However, subsequently, she was promoted to E-3 grade w.e.f. 30.06.2023. She made representation against her non-promotion to E-3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022 and alleging non- consideration of her representation, she approached this Tribunal earlier. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the respondents intimated the reasons of her non-promotion to E-3 along with others 3 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023 thereby declining for promoting her to E-3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022. The reasons for denying her promotion as stated by the respondents are that she was required to score minimum 110 credit points/marks in the last three years whereas she had secured only 90 credit points for which DPC did not find her suitable for promotion based on the credit points. The above aspect was communicated to her in letter dated 20.05.2023. In the above circumstances, she has approached this Tribunal in the instant OA praying to quash the communication dated 20.05.2023 and to direct the respondents to promote her to E- 3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022. The applicant in support of her relief has taken several points but Ld. Counsel for the applicant confined his argument to the extent that the credit points/marks is awarded based on the performance appraisal report of an employee. She was never communicated any shortcoming/shortfall or any reprimand insofar as discharging her duties for last three years. Thus, recording below benchmark in performance appraisal report without any evidence or communication amounts to making the report behind the back and acting on the same in violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant 4 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs State of Punjab and Ors, (1979) 2 SCC 368, Sukhdev Singh Vs UOI & Ors, (2013) 9 SCC 566, and Dev Dutt Vs Union of India & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2513.
3. On the other hand, the main plank of the submission of the respondents counsel is that making the rating on the performance appraisal report of an employee is exclusively within the domain of the DPC, which makes the points based on several factors. It is stated that it is not in dispute that the procedure followed by the DPC is just and proper based on rules. It cannot be disputed that an employee has a right for consideration but he/she cannot claim an indefeasible right for promotion. In the instant case, the case of the applicant was duly considered along with others for promotion to E-3 but since she did not achieve the merit points as required under Rules, she was rightly denied the same which needs no interference by this Tribunal. To buttress their stand, respondents have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu & another Vs K.N.Ratnavelu, AIR 1998 SC 3037. 5 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
4. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records.
5. We may record that a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209, laid emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India & held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. In the instant case the case of the applicant was considered for promotion to E-3 but she could not be promoted due to lower in credit points/marks assessed by the DPC for last three years. However, her stand is that the credit point/marks assessed by the DPC is based on his annual appraisal report. According to the applicant such lower marking in self appraisal report had never been communicated to her but the same has been taken into consideration by the DPC which amounts acting on the said report without giving any opportunity and, thus, the consideration and denial of promotion is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the law. 6 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
6. We are reminded by a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs Union of India & Ors, AIR 2008 SC 2513, wherein it was held as under:
"39. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.
40. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act 7 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023 fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.
..... ...... ....
45. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
46. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench erred in law. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench.
47. We are informed that the appellant has already retired from service. However, if his representation for upgradation of the `good' entry is allowed, he may benefit in his pension and get some arrears. Hence we direct that the 'good' entry of 1993-94 be communicated to the appellant forthwith and he should be permitted to make a representation against the same praying for its upgradation. If the upgradation is allowed, the appellant should be considered forthwith for promotion as Superintending Engineer retrospectively and if he is promoted he will get the benefit of higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay along with 8% per annum interest.
48. We, therefore, direct that the 'good' entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months thereafter and the said representation will be 8 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023 decided within two months thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment."
7. In the case of Sukhdev (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same.
Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9. The decisions of this Court in Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and others and K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India and others and the 9 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023 other decisions of this Court taking a contrary view are declared to be not laying down a good law.
11. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we are informed that the appellant has already been promoted. In view thereof, nothing more is required to be done. Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the concerned authorities appropriately in accordance with law."
8. Transparency and fair play in all action is sine qua non. Pleadings of the Respondents are conspicuously silent as to whether the recording made in the self appraisal report last three years had been communicated to the applicant giving her due opportunity to mend/improve herself. It is noted that when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. In the instant case, the applicant, however, subsequently promoted to E-3 grade but since the very vital aspects of the matter, as discussed above, is left with no answer, we are constrained to come to the conclusion and direct as under:
10 O.A.No. 260/00341 of 2023
(a) The Respondents shall communicate the copies of the Appraisal Reports of the relevant period in question, if not done earlier, to the applicant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(b) On receipt of the same, if the applicant so wishes, she may prefer to make representation to the competent authority for up gradation of the same within a period of 15 days hence;
(c) The competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with Rules and Law and the outcome of the consideration may be intimated to the Applicant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such representation;
(d) In the event of upgradation of the Appraisal Reports in respect of applicant for the period in question, her case be reconsidered for promotion to E-3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022 and be decided in accordance with Rules/Law.
9. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS