Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh U Thrimuthulu vs National Building Construction ... on 4 December, 2019
1
OA No.4275/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 4275/2014
New Delhi, this the 4th day of December, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Shri U. Thrimurthulu (E:3365)
S/o Late Shri U. Paddaiah
Aged about 55 years
R/o 17-126-64/A, East Kalayanpuri
Uppal, Hyderabad and
Working as Asst. Manager (Finance)
under the respondents
Presently posted at Singareni TPS
Andra Pradesh.
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri S.S. Tiwari)
Versus
1. National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd.
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
NBCC Bhawan
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. Director (Finance)
NBCC Ltd., NBCC Bhavan
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Executive Director (HRM)
HRM Division
NBCC Ltd., NBCC Bhawan
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
.. Respondents
(By Advocates : Shri Debarshi Bhadra)
2
OA No.4275/2014
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant retired from the service of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) on 30.09.2018. While he was in service, he received a letter dated 20.04.2011, which is to the effect that his case was considered for Performance Related Promotion (PRP) for the year 2009, and since his ACRs for the years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 were below benchmark, he was not extended the benefit. It was also mentioned that the ACRs are being communicated, enabling him to make representation to the Competent Authority, if he is so advised. Acting on that, the applicant made a representation on 29.07.2011.
2. According to the applicant, in the ACR for the year 2005-06, the Reporting Authority rated him as „B‟ by awarding 75% marks, whereas the Reviewing Authority has reduced the same to the level of „C‟ with 69% marks. As regards, the ACR for the year 2006-07, the applicant pleaded that the ACR was reviewed by an Officer, under 3 OA No.4275/2014 whom he did not work at all. The applicant submitted the reminders and, ultimately, through letter dated 19.06.2014, he was informed that the Competent Authority has already taken a decision in the matter and the same was communicated to him on 30.12.2011 and a copy thereof was also enclosed. This O.A. is filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2011, communicated vide letter dated 19.06.2014.
3. The applicant contends that in his representation dated 29.07.2011, he raised several contentions and though the Competent Authority is under obligation to call for the record and remarks of the Reporting Officer and the Review Officer and then to come to its own conclusion, the impugned order was passed just by referring to an exercise, said to have been undertaken by an Authority, for PRP benefits. The applicant further contends that the exercise undertaken by the Competent Authority is totally inadequate and, hence, illegal.
4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that on receipt of a representation from 4 OA No.4275/2014 the applicant, the Competent Authority examined the issue with reference to the prescribed procedure and communicated the same to the applicant. It is stated that no illegality has taken place, and the O.A. is barred by limitation.
5. We heard Shri S.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Debarshi Bhadra, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The applicant was not communicated the ACRs for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, obviously, there was nothing adverse to him. The necessity to communicate the below benchmark ACRs arose, only in the light of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725. Accordingly, they were communicated to the applicant, through covering letter dated 20.04.2011. The applicant made his representation on 29.07.2011.
7. Though there is some dispute as to the communication of the decision of the Competent 5 OA No.4275/2014 Authority, what ultimately becomes relevant is the letter dated 30.12.2011, through which the representation of the applicant was considered. It reads as under:
"Please refer your grievance letter dated 29.07.2011 regarding anomaly in writing of ACR‟s by officers other than RO-I from finance and further requesting for review of ACR ratings for the year 2005-06 & 2006-07.
It is to inform you that the CGC has discussed your grievance in its meeting held on 27.09.2011. Your grievance was examined in reference to relevant rules of the corporation. The recommendation of CGC is given below :
"As the grievance of Shri Thrimuthulu regarding ACRs has already been examined by the Empowered Committee for PRP benefits hence CGC is of the opinion that the grievance of Shri Thrimuthulu does not deserve any merit, hence, rejected."
You are requested to take a strict note of the above please."
8. From a perusal of the letter dated 30.12.2011, it becomes clear that the Competent Authority, did nothing more than taking into account, the exercise undertaken by the Empowered Committee for extending the PRP benefits. The prescribed procedure in this behalf (a) mandates that the Competent Authority must call for the relevant record pertaining to the ACRs; (b) call for the remarks of the 6 OA No.4275/2014 Reporting and Reviewing Officers; and (c) undertake an evaluation of the entire ACRs, by himself. There is not even a mention of calling for the remarks of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, much less an exercise undertaken by the Competent Authority.
9. The very purpose of conferring power upon the Competent Authority is to ensure that the imbalance, if any, that has crept into the ACR of an employee is corrected in an objective manner. We do not find any such exercise, on the part of the Competent Authority.
10. We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned order. We direct the Competent Authority to call for the record pertaining to the two ACRs of the years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the remarks of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, in relation to those two ACRs and to arrive at its own conclusion. In case the officers have retired, the prescribed procedure therefor, shall also be followed.
7OA No.4275/2014
11. If the ACRs are upgraded, a review DPC shall be convened to examine the feasibility of extending the PRP benefit to the applicant. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /jyoti/