Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3faGj. the claim of the respondents that the applicant had not submitted any representation "before 29.01.2015 and that the representation of that date was not Y ~~ given through appropriate authorities is a wrong statement of the respondents;
3fe). Rotational Transfer Policy was applied against the applicant to isolate or remove him from the Marketing Department to harass him. He has also mentioned two cases 12.8. one of Sri D.Dey, Ex-DGM (Concentrator) claiming that he served for entire 29 years at Malanidkhand Copper Project, Malanjkhand O we Th (Madhya Pradesh) and only year at Khetri Copper Complex, Khetrinagar (Rajasthan). Bnother of Sri §.Bhaskar Rao, AGM (Chem) stating that he 'has: served his entire service at one place. But in those cases the Rotational Policy was not found suitable N, but it was applied only to the applicant to "remove him from Marketing Department; and 3(f£}. the respondents have got confused about communication of adverse entry in AcR / APAR with non-payment of Performance Related Pay (PRE) to the applicant. The claim of the respondents that non-receipt of PRP amounts by the applicant amounted to communication of adverse remarks in his bate St ilegal and irrational.
Sim). Performance Related Pay fPRE} is jinked with the performance appraisal and based on evaluation score in the appraisal gradings, the PRE is paid ta an individual executive. As per the rules, no PRP was paid to the applicant as his appraisal gradings for the year 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 Was poor. Therefore, the applicant was fully aware of non-payment of PRP to him and his Appraisal Gradings. In spite of this and several counselings session held for him, he failed to achieve the expected result and improvement in his performance;
ed 4(b). In this regard, the contentions of the respondents that non-payment of PRP on time to the applicant was in fach communication os of his poor grading is not fully acceptable. Even if, he was not paid PRP, as per the settled position in law by the Apex Court in the cases of Sukhdev Singh, Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar [supral, it is necessary to communicate remarks / entries tn all the ACRs / APARsS of he concerned ct employee within a reasonable period of time which may afford the concerned employee an opportunity of making representation, if ANY, for consideration of and decision thereon by the concerned authorities (the respondents in the present cases}.