Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Rajnesh Jain W/O Sh. Ravinder Kumar ... vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA 3288/2011 New Delhi this the 13th day of September, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Mrs. Rajnesh Jain w/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar Jain R/o 885, Sectgor-22, Gurgaon (Haryana) Working as Director, Research & Publication Unit, Min. of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Wing No.6, Block-8, West Block, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 003. Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. R.N. Singh) Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001 (Through its Secretary). 2. Shri S.K. Gupta, Under Suspension, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001. 3. Shri J. Dash, D.G. & C.E.O. NSS Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, New Delhi. Respondents ORDER (ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:
Present Original Application has been filed challenging order dated 18.10.2010, vide which representation of the applicant against below benchmark gradings for the year 2005-06 has been partly accepted. Applicant for the year 2005-06 was initially reported as Average by the reporting officer but the said report has now been upgraded to Good. It is the case of the applicant that she should have been adjudged at least Very Good, if not above.
2. One of the points that was raised by the applicant in her representation is that her reporting officer was not senior in level to her and was thus incompetent to record her ACRs. For the contention that only a higher officer should be the reporting officer, counsel places reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India V/s. Kashinath Kher, 1996 (8) SCC 762. We find from the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 that this point has not been dealt with by the concerned authority.
3. Without prejudice to other points raised by the applicant in this Original Application at this stage, we would like to dispose of this Original Application by issuing direction to the respondents to deal with the point as mentioned above by passing a separate order.
4. We are not issuing any notice in this case as we are of the view that in the ultimate analysis as mentioned above respondents are only to deal with the point, which has been taken by the applicant in her representation but not dealt with by the concerned authority. This OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents that let the officer, who decided the representation of the applicant vide order dated 18.10.2010, deal with the point, as mentioned above, and pass fresh order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the grievance of the applicant may still survive, it will always be open for her to file fresh Application taking all the points that may be relevant.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (V.K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/naresh/