Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The necessary facts of this case, as noticed by the learned Tribunal, are that initially the petitioner joined respondent no.1 (National Building Construction Corporation Limited) as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on 11.12.1981. He was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) Grade II in the year 1985 and as a Resident Engineer in the year 1995. Thereafter he was reverted from the post of Resident Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the year 1997 and on re-designation of the post of Resident Engineer as Deputy Project Manager, he was re-designated as Deputy Project Manager in the year 2002. The respondents, in pursuance of the PRP Scheme - 2009, promoted various Deputy Project Managers, including some of his juniors, as Project Managers, however, the petitioner herein was not promoted, which forced the petitioner to file representation to the respondents to consider him for the post of Project Manager (Civil), from the date when his juniors were promoted to the said post i.e. w.e.f. 5.3.2009.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the criteria fixed and as per the Scheme the petitioner did not possess the eligibility criteria and, thus, he could not have derived benefit of PRP Scheme. As far as the allegations of malafide are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no malafide have been alleged nor proved, thus, this ground would not be open to the petitioner. Counsel further contends that the Reviewing Officer had the opportunity to assess the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner was reporting directly to the Reviewing Officer.

"Since the RO-2 has exposure to the performance of the appraisee, in absence of any error on the face of ACR the rating accorded by RO-2 will be relied upon. Further, the next superior authority i.e. the Countersigning Authority has also endorsed RO2's assessment. Therefore, in this period also the EC found no justification for changing the grading/rating."

The EC guidelines No.11 states "For the purposes of eligibility of the employee to receive the benefit of the PRP Scheme 2009, the EC will first consider three years i.e., from (FY 2005-FY 2008). Only in case the employee has a "C" rating in one of the years, the Committee would consider ACR of last two years, i.e., FY 2003-FY 2005." 

               "2003-2004               „C‟ - 69.5%
               2004-2005                „B" - 70%
               2005-2006                „B‟ - 81%
               2006-2007                „C‟ - 66.5%
               2007-2008                „C‟ - 62%"

10. It is also averred in the petition that the grades given in the ACRs „C‟ stands as Good, „B‟ stands as Very Good and „A‟ stands as Outstanding/Excellent.

11. As per the PRP Scheme the following criteria was laid down:

"11. For the purposes of eligibility of the employee to receive the benefit of the PRP Scheme, 2009, the EC will first consider three years i.e. from (FY 2005 - FY 2008). Only in case the employee has a "C" rating in one of the years, the Committee would consider ACR of last two years, i.e. FY 2003 - FY 2005."