Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Rajendra Singh Rawat vs Union Of India on 11 May, 2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/00691/2015
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 11th day of May, 2016
SHRI G.P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
DR. MURTAZA ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Rajendra Singh Rawat, Aged about 58 years
Son of Shri Bala Singh Rawat, working as District Valuation Officer
R/o Quarter No.4, 5, 6, Income Tax Colony Kotra, Sultanabad,
Bhopal 462003 (M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate S/Shri A.P. Shrivastava and Sapan Usrethe)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110011
2. Director General, Central Public Works Department
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011
3. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069 (M.P.)
4. Chief Engineer, Indo-Bangladesh Border Zone,
Central Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan,
Pariwahan Nagar Matigara Siliguri (W.B.)-734428 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.P.Singh)
(Date of reserving the order:17.03.2016)
O R D E R
By G.P. Singhal, AM:
By filing this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
8.A To quash/set aside DG, CPWDs impugned Office Memorandum No.12/9/2013/EE(C)/CR Cell dated 18-09-2014 (Annexure A-2)
8.B To expunge all seven Good grading in Part III (Annexure A-4) assessed by the Respondent (i.e.the then CE, IBBZ, CPWD) in the ACR of 2007-08 which was below bench mark.
8.C Respondents letter vide No.30/12/2013-EC.1 dated 09-04-2015 (Annexure A-1) addressed to the Secretary UPSC New Delhi should be re-issued after modifications by competent authority to review DPC.
8.D Assessment order of DPC dated 10-04-2015 (Annexure A-3) in respect of applicant should be modified.
8.E Assessment order of DPC dated 31-08-2012 (Annexure A-13) in respect of applicant should be modified as in this DPC also applicant ACR of year 2007-08 was considered.
8.F Considering the fact that the petition is due for his retirement within two years, the Honble Tribunal may deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall file his representation afresh to challenge his below benchmark grading in the ACRs for the years 2007-08 before the competent authority.
8.G The representation so filed by the petitioner shall be considered by an officer higher in rank to that of an Accepting Officer and the representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the Competent Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
8.H If his entry is upgraded, the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion ommittee (DPC) within two months thereafter;
8.I If the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively he should be given the benefit of seniority from such date along with arrears of pay and all other consequential benefits.
8.J Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deems appropriate may be granted.
8.K Cost of the application.
2. The applicants name was considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) (Group A Scale of pay Rs.18,400-500-22400 pre-revised) in Central Public Works Department, Ministry of Urban Development by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for brevity DPC) held on 31.8.2012 (Annexure-A-13) and he was found unfit for promotion. It is mentioned in the DPC proceedings dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure A-13) that applicants Annual Confidential Report (for brevity ACR) for the year 2007-2008, though contained overall grading very good, as recorded by the reporting officer, which is not reviewed by the reviewing officer, the committee after going through the whole ACR came to the conclusion that the remarks given against various columns in the ACR do not commensurate with the overall grading. Therefore, the committee took a conscious decision that the applicants ACR for the year 2007-2008 should be taken as good. The applicant submitted a representation on 14.8.2013 in this regard on which he was informed vide impugned order dated 18.09.2014 that since final grading in the ACR was not below benchmark, there is no requirement of communication of ACR of the year 2007-2008 to him. It was further mentioned, in the said order, that there was no provision in the OM dated 13.4.2010 for review and upgradation of assessment of DPC. Therefore, his representation was rejected. The applicant thereafter filed another representation dated 14.10.2014, on which, department wrote letter dated 9.4.2015 to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (for brevity UPSC), clarifying the status of the applicants ACR of 2007-2008 and requesting the UPSC to place this letter before the DPC for consideration in terms of para 5 of DOPT OM No.22011/5/2013-Esttt(D) dated 9.5.2014. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since DPC was held on 10.4.2015, this letter was probably not considered by the DPC as there is no reference of it in the proceedings of the DPC meeting dated 10.4.2015.
3. Heard the learned counsel of both sides and carefully perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
4. We find that the ACR of the applicant for the year 2007-2008 was viewed by the DPC as good and, therefore, irrespective of what is mentioned in the final grading recorded in his ACR by the reporting officer its effect, while being considered for promotion, is that of good grading, which is below bench mark. Thus, in view of judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & others, (2008) 8 SCC 725, which was reiterated in the judgment of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566, the applicant is to be communicated his ACR for the year 2007-2008 and after giving the applicant an opportunity of filing a representation, review/upgrading of this ACR is called for. Since the applicant is already having copy of this entire ACR for the year 2007-2008, which was obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, the respondents should allow him to file his representation against it within a period of 30 days of the communication of this order, and on receipt of the representation, the competent authority of the respondents should consider and decide it as per the provisions of the DOPTs OM dated 13.4.2010 within a period of one month. If on such consideration the applicants ACR is modified/upgraded, then the respondents should conduct review DPC within a period of two months from the date of the order of modification/upgradation of his ACR and if the applicant is recommended for promotion by the review DPC, he should be granted such promotion along with the consequential benefits.
5. In the result, the Original Application is disposed of with the above directions no costs.
(Dr. Murtaza Ali) (G.P. Singhal)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
rkv
4
Sub: promotion ` OA200/00691/2015
Page 4 of 4