Dutt Vs. UOI & Ors. required said below benchmark ACR
grading to be intimated to the respondent for her response, the said below ... 4018/2011 Page 1 of 10
benchmark ACR grading was communicated to the respondent on May
12, 2010. She immediately approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal
pass final orders, the ACRs for those two years should be ignored and previous years ACRs meeting the benchmark should be taken into account ... fulfill the required benchmark for promotion.
Admittedly, she was not communicated any below benchmark ACRs at that point of time.
She moved the Tribunal
Court in these writ
petitions is with regard to the below benchmark ACRs (Annual
Confidential Reports) which were not communicated to the employees ... latter decision, a clear view
has been taken that below benchmark ACRs, which have not been
communicated, are not to be simply ignored
case of non-
communication of below benchmark ACRs. The court directed that adverse
ACRs below the benchmark which fell within the zone of consideration ... adverse ACR. In case, the ACR
is upgraded, making the incumbent eligible for consideration, review DPC
would be held based upon the reappraised ACRs
very reporting officer/reviewing authority
gave the below benchmark “Good” and before giving the below
benchmark ACR – “Good”, no opportunity was given to the respondent ... there is no basis to award the below benchmark –
“Good”; (ii) that before the below benchmark ACR “Good” for the year
2007-2008, no opportunity
altogether ignore the below benchmark ACRs and consider
the further preceding year ACR which were up to the
benchmark. But we must confess that nobody ... shall treat
such non-communicated below benchmark ACRs as if they were not
written or they were not available for any reason during the relevant
periods in
question which were below benchmark have been directed to be ignored
because below benchmark ACR gradings were never conveyed to the
respondent ... need to be communicated to the appraisee. Meaning thereby, a
below benchmark ACR grading which is 'Good' need not be communicated
benefits, neither his case was in Sealed Cover nor his below benchmark ACRs have been communicated to him. Therefore, he was also entitled ... below benchmark ACRs for the relevant years, the same is untenable. He has further submitted that if the ACRs were below the benchmark, unless they
2010 in the Tribunal in the matter of communication of below benchmark ACRs. In its order dated 12.07.2010, the Tribunal recorded that ... However, the DPC considered these ACRs and found the applicant unfit for promotion because these two ACRs being below benchmark. In this regard, the respondent
case of the applicant that he was conveyed below benchmark ACRs for the year 2004 and 2006 requesting him to submit his representations ... impugned Memorandum dated 01.08.2011 that the benefit of representation against below benchmark ACR grading cannot be granted to him as the review DPC has been
