Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Prem Lata Chaudhari vs The Director General on 6 May, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.918/2010 New Delhi this the 6th day of May, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman, Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Dr. Prem Lata Chaudhari, Chief Medical Officer (NFSG), I-45, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Aggarwal) -VERSUS- 1. The Director General, ESIC, (Employees Estate Insurance Corporation), Panchdeep Bhavan, CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002 2. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Marg, New Delhi-110001 -Respondents (By Advocates: Mrs. Rekha Palli and Mrs. Amrita Prakash) O R D E R (Oral)
Justice V.K. Bali:
Dr. Prem Lata Chaudhary, applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1 1985 seeking a direction to be issued to respondents that she should be granted Sr. Administrative Grade (SAG) with effect from the date on which her juniors had been conferred the same.
2. The facts, as projected in the OA, reveal that the case of the applicant for SAG under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme came for consideration by the DPC which met on 18.2.2009. The ACRs under consideration by the DPC were from 2002-03 to 2006-07. Admittedly, the applicant had the benchmark, which was Very Good, for all years except 2006-07. In the year aforesaid, the applicant even though was graded as Very Good by the reporting officer, but she was downgraded to Good by the reviewing officer. It is for this precise reason that she was found unfit for promotion to SAG under DACP Scheme and she was overlooked in the matter of promotion by her juniors.
3. It is conceded position that the DPC that met on 19.3.2010 considered the applicant fit for promotion by considering his ACR of the year 2006-07 as Very Good, finding no justification in downgrading the ACR of the applicant by the reviewing officer. We may mention here that whereas the reporting officer, even as regards ACR of the year 2006-07 had assessed the applicant as Very Good but the reviewing officer downgraded her ACRs and assessed her as only Good. In that regard, the DPC that met on 19.3.2010 has mentioned as follows:-
DPC observed that during the years 2006-07 Reviewing Officer has down graded the grading but the reason given is not justified. Therefore, the DPC agreed with the remarks of Reporting Officer. If the reasons for downgrading the applicant by the reviewing officer for the year 2006-07 were not found justified by the DPC that met on 19.3.2010 which considered her for promotion and actually promoted her, the said reason could also be held as not justified when the applicant was assessed by the DPC held on 18.2.2009. For the precise reason, as have been given by the DPC held on 19.3.2010, downgrading the applicant ought to have been held as not justified. Thus, the grading of the applicant for the year 2006-07 had to be considered Very Good and, therefore, the applicant ought to have been declared as fit for promotion.
4. In view of facts, as mentioned above, this OA is allowed with a direction to respondents to consider the applicant for promotion with effect from 29.10.2008 i.e. the date when persons junior to her were promoted. The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed as expeditiously as possibly and preferably within six weeks from today.
(L.K. Joshi) (V.K. Bali) Vice Chairman (A) Chairman /lg/