Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Sant Ram Meena vs M/O Railways on 9 May, 2023
1
OA No.688/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 688/2014
Order reserved on: 03.05.2023
Date of order:09.05.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J)
Sant Ram Meena son of Shri Johari Lal Meena, Aged
around 47 years, resident of A/184, Tirupati Nagar,
Jagatpura, Jaipur presently working as Deputy Chief
Signal & Telecom Engineer/Construction, North
Western Railway, Jaipur.
....Applicant
(By Adv: Shri Amit Mathur)
VERSUS
1. The Railway Board, through its Secretary, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, North Western Railway,
Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
....Respondents
(By Adv: Shri Anand Sharma)
2
OA No.688/2014
ORDER
Per : Shri Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
The applicant in the present Original Application has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) The present original application may kindly be allowed and the order dated 27.3.14 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. The respondents may be directed to give Non functional SAG to the applicant w.e.f. 19.11.2012 as has been allowed to his batch mates of 1990 batch of IRSSE as per Annexure A-1 dated 20-12-13. The respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits along with arrears with interest.
(ii) Any other order or direction which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Cost of this original application also may be awarded in favour of the applicant."
2. The applicant is an officer belonging to IRSSE (Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers) of the 1990 batch. His claim is that he has been illegally denied Non-Functional Upgradation to SA Grade, which has been given to other officers of his batch, by orders dated 20.12.2013 (impugned orders at Annex A/1). These are for the vacancy year 2012-13. The applicant has been informed vide letter dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure-A/2), that he has not been 3 OA No.688/2014 found fit for this upgradation by the DPC which met to consider fitness for this promotion. The applicant has come to know that it has happened because the DPC considered his APARs for the period 2006-07 to 2010- 11 to determine his eligibility for this promotion. The minimum grading required for this promotion is "Very Good", in the preceding 05 years, counted from the year the vacancy for such promotion arises. The applicant had been earlier informed that his APARs for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 had below benchmark grading, and on his representation, the APAR of the year 2007-08 was upgraded from "good" to "very good", while keeping the grading for the year 2006-07 as "good". The applicant claims that the relevant 5 years, for promotion against 2012-13 vacancies, are from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The applicant fulfills the required benchmark grading of "very good" in all these years. The applicant has been informed, in reply to his RTI queries, that the period of APARs considered for grant of NFU to SAG, for the batch of 1990, are from 2007 to 2011 (Annexure-A/4). The denial of NFU SAG promotion, in the impugned orders, which is apparently on account of considering the below benchmark APAR of 2006-07, is wrong, and hence this Original Application.
4OA No.688/2014
3. The respondents have denied the claims made by the applicant. It is stated that the applicant had below benchmark grading in the period relevant for consideration for grant of NFU to SAG. The reply states that the DPC and the reporting/reviewing authorities for APAR, are different. The DPC can make an independent evaluation of the service records to arrive at their own assessment of the grading of an officer (to determine whether an officer fulfills the conditions of fitness for promotion). The instructions contained in the rules relating to such promotions (dated 13.04.2010 and 16.06.2000 annexed at R/1/1 and R/1/2) make it clear that the five years relevant for such consideration are 05 years upto the year immediately preceding the year to which the panel of promotion relates. Following these instructions, the DPC rightly took into consideration, for deciding the promotion panel for the year 2012-13, APARs of 05 years upto the year 2010-2011.The below benchmark APAR of the applicant was conveyed to him and his representation taken into consideration to upgrade one of such below benchmark APARs. Since there is no illegality in the impugned panel, the Original Application, which is filed more than one year after 5 OA No.688/2014 the issuing of impugned order, and is, therefore, also barred by period of limitation, should be dismissed with costs.
4. No rejoinder has been filed, despite ample opportunity to do so. The matter was finally heard on 03.05.2023. Both the learned counsels repeated the arguments mentioned in the respective pleadings of the parties.
5. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, we have no hesitation in concluding that we find no illegality, irregularity or arbitrariness in the impugned orders. The rules relating to the period of confidential records, which should be taken into consideration to assess the fitness of a person for grant of promotion to the SAG, are very clear. We are reproducing the concerned paragraph here:
"In regard to operation of the Model Calendar for DPCs, a doubt has been raised by the certain quarters as to the question of the relevant year up to which ACRs are required to be considered by the DPCs. In this connection, it is one again clarified that only such ACRs should be considered which became available during the year immediately preceding the vacancy/panel years even if DPCs are held later than the schedule prescribed in the Model Calendar. In other words, for the vacancy/panel year 6 OA No.688/2014 2000-2001, ACRs up to the year 1998-99 are required to be considered irrespective of the date of convening of DPC."
6. A plain reading of this instruction would make it clear that the relevant 05 years, for consideration of promotion to the panel of eligible candidates in the year 2012-13, would be from 2006-07 to 2010-11 (both inclusive). This is the period which has been taken into consideration by the respondents, Admittedly, the APAR of one of these years (2006-07) is below the required bench mark. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that there is an apparent anomaly in having the same period of APARs (from 2007 to 2011) under consideration for promotion of batches of 1989 and 1990 (in the reply given to an RTI query, at Annexure-A/4). This does not make the action of the respondent with respect to the year 2012-13 panel wrong. It may, if at all, be a cause of contention by the 1989 batch, which is not the matter in issue before us.
7. We also find that this Original Application was filed after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under the AT act. However, we are not dismissing it on that technical ground now. As we have not found 7 OA No.688/2014 any merit in the claim made by the applicant, about any illegality or arbitrariness in the action taken by the respondents, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) !Vv~