Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 292 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing U.P. Jal Nigam & Others vs Prabhat Chandra Jain & Others on 31 January, 1996

Seema Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2020

In U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain (1996) 2 SCC 363 there is only a stray observation "if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading". There is no discussion about the question whether such "good" grading can also have serious adverse consequences as it may virtually eliminate the chances of promotion of the incumbent if there is a benchmark requiring "very good" entry. And even when there is no benchmark, such downgrading can have serious adverse effect on an incumbent's chances of promotion where comparative merit of several candidates is considered."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - S Nagu - Full Document

Vijayshanker vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 July, 2005

She has also submitted that the ratio of the judgment in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jainas well as other judgments cited by Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicant has no application to the facts of the instant case. The DPC is required to follow the DOPT' s guidelines and as per the guidelines, only adverse remarks were required to be communicated to the officer concerned. Since there were no adverse remarks in the ACR of the applicant, the same were not communicated to him. The DPC was however, fully justified in assessing the applicant on the basis of the ACRs of the last five years which disentitled him for further promotions.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naib Subedar Major Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 14 August, 2008

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to a number of judgments on the requirement of adverse ACR being communicated to the petitioner. The relevant extracts were communicated to the petitioner but he refused to receive the same. He is thus to blame himself for the same and cannot seek to take advantage of that WP (C) No.12023/2006 Page 11 of 13 aspect. The judgment in Union of India & Anr. V.Major Bahadur Singh‟s case (supra) is also significant as contrary legal view taken by this Court would not prevail in view of the clear observations of the Apex Court that what has been observed in U.P.Jal Nigam & Ors v. Prabhat Chandra Jain‟s case (supra) applies to that Institution i.e. UP Jal Nigam and the Army has to be governed by its own rules and regulations. The requirement of counseling arises where there is deterioration in the performance of a personnel over a period of time. The present case is one where the performance of the petitioner appears to have dipped during a particular Operation and the pen picture seems to suggest that while the petitioner may be performing well in normal circumstances, he was unable to rise to the occasion expected of him in a particular Operation. It is in this context that the observations have been made about the petitioner preferring to be a passenger and looking for soft jobs.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Subodh Kumar Pattnaik vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 August, 2005

On going through the records submitted by the respondents and selection proceedings we find that the applicant has acquired grading as 'Good', whereas the benchmark for such selection as per the circular and by the Selection Committee has been laid down as 'Very Good'. Then the question that comes is whether the ACR 'Good' is adverse or not. Learned Counsel for the applicant has taken us to a decision reported in 1996(2) SCC 363 in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors., in which the Supreme Court has observed that "Confidential report- Adverse remarks' Downgrading of the entry- When can be adverse?" The gradation falling from 'Very Good' to 'Good' that may not be ordinarily an adverse entry since both are positive grading. Even a positive confidential entry can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should be quantitatively damaging may not be true and the entry 'Good' which is per se not adverse will amount to be adverse when the bench mark is being put as "Very Good'. Such a state of affairs should not be permitted. Therefore, such information should have been informed to the employee and communicated the same. To fortify the above, it is also to notice a decision of this Tribunal reported in (1996) 33 ATC 802 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench of a similar and identical case and held that "Remarks which have potential of adversely affecting an employee's career, held on facts are adverse- Such remarks have to be communicated to the employee- Grading an employee as 'Good' and 'Average' when bench-mark for promotion is 'Very Good', held, are adverse remarks which should have been communicated to the applicant." Admittedly, the same position prevails in this case and the confidential report of the applicant is 'Good' which was not communicated at any point of time to the applicant has adversely and prejudicely affected the selection of the applicant. We also find from the record that the Selection Committee which consisted of only Railway Officials without even a single member from the Medical Service has evaluated without any application of judicious mind and found the applicant unfit. On going through the entire record we could not find any cogent reason recorded except the gradation of ACR in the non-selection of the applicant. The legal position of such an entry in the ACR should have been communicated is not, admittedly, done in this case which is patent irregularity in the selection process, nor the Selection Committee make its mind applied. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the declaration that the applicant is unfit will not stand in its legs and the impugned action is to be set aside.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Others on 26 May, 2023

"14. There is nothing before me to show that the concerned authority recorded reasons for downgrading in respect of the petitioner in his personal file, and admittedly, it was not communicated to the petitioner. Learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondents, however, submits that in that case downgrading was from "Outstanding" to "Satisfactory"
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - W S Nargal - Full Document

State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.,Tax ... vs Dev Raj Vishwakarma, S/O-Late J.M. ... on 5 December, 2011

In Service Jurisprudence when we talk about downgrading of incumbent, it is actually meant that the grading of an incumbent has gone down as compared to his grading over the previous years. This interpretation of downgrading is deducible also from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain, reported in 1996, 2 SCC, 363, in para 2 whereof it has been so observed:
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Indira Saranath vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 May, 2007

47. As regards the contention of the applicant that if her ACRs were downgraded, this fact should have been communicated to her as per the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. (supra), in spite of the averments of the learned Counsel for the applicant to the contrary, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Major Bahadur Singh (supra), has clearly held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. (supra) has no universal application. In any case, admittedly, the jury is still out on this subject.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ali M.M vs The Chief General Manager on 16 February, 2010

7. We have heard counsel for the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant was promoted as SDE in May, 2000 considering his past performance as reflected in his CR dossiers. Subsequently, he has earned more than two average gradings in his later reports. As held by the Apex Court in U.P. Jalnigam and others v. Prabhath Chandra Jain and others (supra) as well as in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others case (supra), when an employee is down graded and such down gradation has an adverse affect on his promotional prospects, he should have been informed about it in tune with the principles of natural justice, so that he could have availed himself of an opportunity to make a representation to the competent authority to get such grading upgraded. Obviously, the respondents have denied such an opportunity to the applicant and the Departmental Screening Committee has taken into consideration of those uncommunicated downgraded CRs while considering his case for the time bound upgradation of the IDA scale and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, allow this O.A. and set aside the Annexure A3 letter dated 28.09.2007 to the extent it applies to the applicant. Since the only reason for denying him the upgraded IDA scale was his unsatisfactory service records containing more than two averages in the ACRs of the previous five years as noticed by the Departmental Screening Committee, we direct the respondents to ignore it and to grant him the time bound upgradation from the IDA scale of Rs.11875- 300-17275 to the IDA scale of Rs.13000-350-18250 with effect from the prescribed date. The aforesaid direction shall be implemented by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. There shall be no order as to cost.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next