Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Kumar Mehta vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 12 February, 2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 4356/1998
Bharat Kumar Mehta
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & 2 Others.
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate.
Counsel for the : Mr.Piyush Dharmadhikari,
respondent No.1 Government Advocate.
Counsel for respondents : Mr. M.L. Jaiswal, learned
No.2 & 3 Senior Counsel with
Mr. Manoj Kushwaha, Adv.
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe
O R D E R
(12.02.2013) In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia seeks quashment of adverse entry made in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1994-95 as well as the order dated 14.8.1997, by which the representation of the petitioner with regard to the entry made in the Annual Confidential Report for the period 1994-95 has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of Higher Pay Scale to the petitioner.
2Writ Petition No. 4356/1998
2. Background facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Graduate Trainee in the year 1977. On completion of one year's training, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer with effect from 13.9.1978. On completion of 9 years of service, the petitioner was granted first Higher Pay Scale of the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 1.4.1989. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 13.9.1993 and was posted as Managing Director on deputation to Gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Multai for a period from 13.9.1993 to 7.3.1995. The respondent No.3 was under obligation to write the Confidential Report for a period from 13.9.1993 to 31.3.1994 and from 1.4.1994 to 7.3.1995.
3. However, despite the repeated reminders from Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Gramin Vidyut Sangh, Maryadit, Jabalpur as well as from the officer of Additional Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, the Managing Director of the Rural Co-operative Society Ltd. did not take any action to ensure prompt submission of the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers including the petitioner, who were posted in Rural Co-operative Societies. The respondent No.3 did not submit confidential report for a period from 13.3.1993 to 31.3.1994. The Managing 3 Writ Petition No. 4356/1998 Director by communication dated 18.1.1995, which was sent to respondent No.3, asked him to submit Confidential Report of the petitioner for the aforesaid period at earliest. Again a letter dated 24.7.1995 was sent in this regard. The petitioner also by letters dated 26.8.1995 and 22.9.1995 requested the respondent No.3 to forward Confidential Reports for the period 1993-94 and 1994-95. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.3 had written the Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period 1994-95 in the month of June, 1996. Thereafter an adverse entry made in the Confidential Report i.e. of Grade- 'C' was communicated to the petitioner after a period of 19 months vide letter dated 18.10.1996 of the Additional Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board.
4. The petitioner on receipt of letter dated 18.10.1996 submitted a representation on 22.11.1996. By letter dated 13.3.1997, the petitioner also requested the Additional Secretary to reconsider entry made in the Confidential Report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.3.1997 for grant of Higher Pay Scale. However, the representation submitted by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 14.8.1997. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the communications Annexure P/5 4 Writ Petition No. 4356/1998 to P/10 submitted that Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1994-95 was written in the month of June, 1996. In the aforesaid Confidential Report, the petitioner was graded "C". Therefore, he was deprived of the benefit of Higher Pay Scale. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 did not write the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1993-94 and the procedure prescribed for writing the Annual Confidential Reports was not followed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision in case of R.T. Panthare Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another , 2008 (4) M.P.H.T. 197.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that as per criteria fixed for grant of Higher Pay Scale, the petitioner should have earned four "B" and one "C" Grade in preceding five years' Annual Confidential Reports. The case of the petitioner for grant of Higher Pay Scale was considered by the Selection Committee in the month of November, 1996, in which Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the year 1991 to 1995 were considered. The petitioner for aforesaid period earned two "B" and three "C"grades. Therefore, he was not found eligible for grant of Higher Pay Scale. Thereafter the case of the petitioner was once again considered by the selection committee in the month of May, 5 Writ Petition No. 4356/1998 1997, in which Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1991 to 1996 were considered. In the aforesaid period, the petitioner had earned two "B" and three "C" grades. The petitioner once again failed to fulfill the criteria laid down for grant of Higher Pay Scale. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 that delay in writing the Annual Confidential Report for the period 1994-95 was caused as the petitioner himself submitted self appraisal report belatedly. It is also submitted that the Annual Confidential Report for the period 13.9.1993 to 31.3.1994 were written and were forwarded to Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has placed reliance on decision in the cases of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur Vs. Vidhya Bhushan Saxena and another , (1997) 10 SCC 227, Pawan Pratap Singh and Others Vs. Reevan Singh and Others , (2011) 3 SCC 267 and Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and Others Vs. Jagat Ram and Another , (2011) 3 SCC 422.
7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the Board vide notification dated 29.5.1999 has prescribed the criteria for grant of Higher 6 Writ Petition No. 4356/1998 Pay Scale. As per the aforesaid criteria, in order to get Higher Pay Scale, an officer should earn four "B" Grades and one "C" Grade in last five years of the Annual Confidential Reports. The case of the petitioner for grant of Higher Pay Scale was considered by the Selection Committee in the month of November, 1996, in which his Annual Confidential Reports for the period 91 to 95 were taken into account. In the aforesaid period, the petitioner had earned two "B" Grades and three "C" Grades. In the month of May, 1997, again the case of the petitioner was considered for grant of Higher Pay Scale and his Annual Confidential Reports for the period 1991-92 to 1995-96 were considered. In the aforesaid period also the petitioner had earned two "B" Grades and three "C" Grades. Thus, in both occasions, in any case the petitioner did not secure four "B" Grades and therefore, was not found entitled for grant of Higher Pay Scale. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not chosen to file the rejoinder to rebut averments made in the return. Therefore, the facts stated in the return have taken to be admitted. [See :
Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P., 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 46 and Sushil Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar, Air 2004 SC
230.]. Thus, the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down for grant of Higher Pay Scale. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his Annual Confidential 7 Writ Petition No. 4356/1998 Report for the period 1994-95 was written subsequently and the Annual Confidential Report for the period 1993-94 was not written, need not be gone into as the same has no impact on the controversy involved in the instant writ petition. Besides that, the respondent No.3 in the return has stated that delay in writing the Annual Confidential Report for the period 1994-95 is attributable to the petitioner himself as the petitioner submitted self appraisal report belatedly. The aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No.3 has also not been rebutted by the petitioner.
8. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RC