Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The applicant submitted representation against the adverse entries of the ACRs and also for upgradation of the same. The respondents constituted an Empowered Committee (EC) to consider all the similar representations from all the employees and to make its recommendation to the competent authority.

8. The said Empowered Committee, after considering the representation(s) of the applicant rejected the claim of the applicant for upgradation of his gradings from `C (Good) to `B (Very Good) or `A (Outstanding). As per the PRP Scheme  2009, which is in the form of Incentive to those performers who obtained `Excellent/Very Good rating in their annual ACRs during the past three years, as the applicant gradings are below the said Benchmark of `B (Very Good), the respondents vide the impugned orders refused to promote him to the post of Project Manager (Civil) under the PRP Scheme-2009. However, the respondents promoted the applicant as Project Manager (Civil), w.e.f. 1.04.2011, under regular Scheme, in the year 2012.

10. The respondents vide their detailed counter would submit that the criteria for promotion under the PRP Scheme and the regular promotion policy are completely different and distinct. Under the One-Time PRP Scheme-2009 an employees ACRs for the past 3 years, i.e., 2005-2008 were considered. In case an employee had received the ratings of `A or `B in the said years, such employee was given the promotion. Later, acting on the representations and requests made by number of employees, the criteria were relaxed so that in case any employee happened to receive one `C rating in the said three years period of 2005-2008, the ACRs of two preceding years, i.e. 2003-2005 were considered. If the concerned employee was found to have received `A or `B ratings in the two previous years, i.e., 2003-2005, the one `C rating in the five relevant years, i.e., 2003-2008, would be condoned as a freak case. Since the applicant did not fulfil the aforesaid criteria, the benefit under the PRP Scheme  2009 was not extended to him.

14. One of the guidelines of the PRP Scheme mentioned in the proceedings dated 24/27.06.2011 is as follows:

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.

15. Admittedly, the applicant got two `C gradings in his ACRs for the past three years, i.e., from 2005 to 2008. As per the aforesaid guidelines, the ACRs of 2003-2005 were required to be considered, in case if an employee got one `C rating, for the years 2005-2008. Since the applicant got two `C gradings for the years 2005-2008, his ACRs for the years 2003-2005 need not be considered at all.

16. Further, the applicant failed to raise any valid ground, in respect of the grading of `C given to him in his ACR for the year 2006-2007 and as a result, he would not be eligible for promotion under the PRP Scheme.

17. In view of the above, even if the gradings for the years 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 are upgraded from `C to `B or `A, still the `C grading awarded to him for the year 2006-2007 will make him ineligible for consideration for promotion under PRP Scheme.

18. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.