Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant retired from the service of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCC) on 30.09.2018. While he was in service, he received a letter dated 20.04.2011, which is to the effect that his case was considered for Performance Related Promotion (PRP) for the year 2009, and since his ACRs for the years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 were below benchmark, he was not extended the benefit. It was also mentioned that the ACRs are being communicated, enabling him to make representation to the Competent Authority, if he is so advised. Acting on that, the applicant made a representation on 29.07.2011.

3. The applicant contends that in his representation dated 29.07.2011, he raised several contentions and though the Competent Authority is under obligation to call for the record and remarks of the Reporting Officer and the Review Officer and then to come to its own conclusion, the impugned order was passed just by referring to an exercise, said to have been undertaken by an Authority, for PRP benefits. The applicant further contends that the exercise undertaken by the Competent Authority is totally inadequate and, hence, illegal.

"Please refer your grievance letter dated 29.07.2011 regarding anomaly in writing of ACR‟s by officers other than RO-I from finance and further requesting for review of ACR ratings for the year 2005-06 & 2006-07.
It is to inform you that the CGC has discussed your grievance in its meeting held on 27.09.2011. Your grievance was examined in reference to relevant rules of the corporation. The recommendation of CGC is given below :
"As the grievance of Shri Thrimuthulu regarding ACRs has already been examined by the Empowered Committee for PRP benefits hence CGC is of the opinion that the grievance of Shri Thrimuthulu does not deserve any merit, hence, rejected."

You are requested to take a strict note of the above please."

8. From a perusal of the letter dated 30.12.2011, it becomes clear that the Competent Authority, did nothing more than taking into account, the exercise undertaken by the Empowered Committee for extending the PRP benefits. The prescribed procedure in this behalf (a) mandates that the Competent Authority must call for the relevant record pertaining to the ACRs; (b) call for the remarks of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers; and (c) undertake an evaluation of the entire ACRs, by himself. There is not even a mention of calling for the remarks of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, much less an exercise undertaken by the Competent Authority.