Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
S L Meena vs U O I And Ors on 26 August, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3641 / 2007
S.L.Meena aged about 45 years, son of Shri Har Chand Meena,
resident of C-328, Siddhartha Nagar, Sawai-Gaitor, Jagatpura,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban
Development and Poverty Alleviation, Nirman-Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Director General (Works), Central Public Works Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi
through its Secretary.
4. Chief Engineer, North Zone III, Central Public Works
Department, Nirman-Bhawan, Vidyadhar-Nagar, Jaipur.
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
through its Registrar, Bais Godam Near Sahakar Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S.Chhaba, Assistant Solicitor General for UOI with Mr. Mukesh Dudi.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 26/08/2017 (1) It is a case where the petitioner was found unfit for promotion on account of not achieving the prescribed benchmark which was 'Very Good'. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that below benchmark ACR grades were never communicated to him. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1996 SC 1368: UP Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain. The Tribunal negated the claim on the reasoning that the Supreme Court was deciding the Rule pertaining to UP Jal Nigam.
(2 of 2) [CW-3641/2007] (2) This is incorrect. The Supreme Court laid down a jural principle, being that if a person had been accorded a below benchmark ACR grading the same had to be communicated to the employee. In two subsequent decisions reported as 2008(8) SCC 725 : Devdutt Vs. UOI & Ors. and (2009) 16 S.C.C. 146: Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors. The same view has been reiterated.
(3) Under the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to communicate to the petitioner the below benchmark gradings as a result of which the writ-petitioner was declared unfit on account of not achieving the benchmark when the DPC met on 01.07.2003. The petitioner would submit a representation against the below benchmark ACR gradings. The same shall be considered as per law. If the representation is rejected, that would be the end of the matter. But if the representation is accepted and the ACR grading is enhanced, a review DPC would be held. If as a result of the review DPC the petitioner is held entitled to be promoted, he would be promoted on notional basis from the date person immediate junior to him was promoted. We note at this stage that the petitioner has since been promoted on 21.04.2005. In that view of the matter, on notional basis without arrears being paid, salary would be re-fixed from the date person immediate junior to the petitioner was given promotion.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J. N.Gandhi/Gourav/Hearing/Weekly/2