Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

54. As per Shri Lohit, no adverse remarks or adverse material was served upon the petitioner in the year 2014-15 but the impugned order dated 02.12.2015 downgrading the rating has been served upon the petitioner without affording opportunity of hearing or giving any show case notice.

55. Further submission of Shri Lohit is that on representation dated 08.09.2017 to Director State Defence Ministry, New Delhi, the AGM (TS) said in a letter dated 02.12.2017 as if 'matter has been re-examined' but there is no ambiguity in the circular/rules and no such letter can be forwarded but Senior Manager (HR) told his father vide letter dated 30.12.2017 about issuance of charge-sheet and payment under the Performance Related Payment (hereinafter referred to "PRP") Scheme is not paid for not fulfilling required PAR in years 2012-13 & 2014-15 though it was paid for year 2013-14. By letter dated 17.4.2018, the Director (Aero), Defence Production Department, Government of India told that "no medical claim is pending" and "it is for HAL to take actions as per Rules". Due to representations on acts of corruption the ADL authorities made him defunct and manoeuvred to get shifted from place of expertise i.e. Construction Department to Lean Department; then got thrown to Barrackpur Division. When nothing was substantiated, they brought back to Lucknow but after arbitrarily disciplinary proceeding, he was ordered to be reverted which is being challenged separately.

57. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even by RTI reply dated 10.8.2016 the DGM (Swadeshikaran)/Public Information Officer declined to supply the Minutes of PRB as if there is no provision for it but no such Rule is provided. By representation dated 2.5.2017 he prayed to GM ADL to restore unilateral reduction made by PRB and Appraisal Marks awarded by Initiating Authority (hereinafter referred to as "IA") and Reviewing Authority (hereinafter referred to as "RA) and ensure the payment of PRP of 2014-15 at earliest with interest for inordinate delay by ADL as no opportunity was given and Minutes of PRB in reducing Final Marks/Performance Rating is not given but referring said "deficiencies". PRB requires to "overcome" without telling as to which Performance it deems "Below Average" or "not satisfactory in meeting the Divisional/ Organisational goals'. It is not as per Para 14.1 HAL Personnel Circular No.651 dated 8.8.2000.

59. Per contra, Shri P.K. Sinha has submitted that the impugning order dated 08.05.2017 as contained in Annexure No.1 clearly indicates that the same is in regard to grant of leave on Medical Ground at PRP payment for the year 2012- 2013 and for the staying of the Enquiry Committee proceeding constituted against the petitioner vide Charge sheet dated 24.01.2016 vide letter dated 04.01.2017 and 16.01.2017 petitioner raised grievance in regard to the non- payment of PRP for year 2012-2013 which have been decided by the said letter dated 01.03.2017 that in absence of filling the MAT, the petitioner has not filed the same in any accessible form and the same could not be evaluated. It has also been stated that the petitioner did not mentioned the task in the MAT and further it has been said that the authorities has accessed the PAR of 2012-13 only on remaining traits and thus assessment was below average, as such the petitioner is not entiltled for PRP for the year 2012-2013 as PAR marks 50 is below average. It has also been stated vide item no. VII, letter dated 26.06.2015 that the petitioner had requested to allow him to re-submit the MAT and PAR to the competent authority and it was held that since competent authority had already evaluated PAR for the year 2012-2013 the petitioner's request was not agreed by the division as the petitioner was not submitted PAR as even advised in consultation and feedbacks.

60. Further submission of Shri P.K. Sinha is that in substance vide impugned letter no.2056 dated 08.05.2017 in light of letter dated 01.05.2017 the PR rating of 2012-2013 was considered and the same was found to be correct. Further, vide letter dated 02.12.2015, the petitioner was communicated regarding PAR being below average in the year 2014- 2015.

61. Further, the impugned letter dated 02.12.2015 is already on record in the writ petition as Annexure-6 and the same is related to performance appraisal and review for the year 2014-15 whereby petitioner was made aware that PRB has rated him below average. Thus, looking to the entire scope of the writ petition, the same relates to only payment of PRP in the year 2012-13 and communication vide feedback dated 02.12.2015 relating to the fact that Performance Review Board have rated the petitioner 'below average' in the performance rating in the year 2014-15, which is not satisfactory in meeting Divisional/ Organizational goods.