Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008
14. However, the Supreme Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) went further and observed categorically that, therefore, the entries good, if at all granted to the appellant, ought not to have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. What this meant was that the below benchmark ACRs, which had not been communicated to an employee, ought not to be taken into consideration for the purposes of considering the promotion of that employee to a higher grade. We must also distinguish between the stage when ACRs are written and the stage when they are considered by the DPC.
Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008
It has, in the first instance, while affirming Dev Dutt (supra), concluded that non-communication of an ACR is violative of the constitutional rights of a government servant/employee. In the second instance, it has stated that such below benchmark ACRs ought not to be taken into consideration while the question of promotion of a particular government servant is in contemplation. Now, that leaves us with the further question as to what is to be done after we ignore/do not consider the below benchmark ACRs. In this regard, we have clear guidelines contained in Chapter 54 of the Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices, which have been issued by the Government of India for DPCs (G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(d), dated the 10th April, 1989 as amended by O.M. No. 22011/5/91-Estt.(d), dated the 27th March, 1997 as amended / substituted vide Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 22011/5/98-Estt.(d), dated the 6th October, 2000). The relevant portion of the guidelines reads as under:-
Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006
2. That in SLP(C) No. 29515 of 2010 while passing the order dated 29.11.10, this Honble Court had referred to another order of two judges Bench dated 29th March 2010 to the following effect. In view of the apparent conflict between the decisions of this Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2008 (8) SCC 725 on the one hand and Satya Narain Shukla Vs. Union of India 2006 (9) SCC 69 and K. M. Mishra Vs. Central Bank of India and Others 2008 (9) SCC 120, these appeals are referred to a Larger Bench. Let the matter be placed before the Honble The Chief Justice of India for this purpose. It is also brought to our notice the decision of three judges Bench reported in 2009(16) SCC 146. In view of the fact that the similar issue/ matter has been referred to Larger Bench, we feel that this issue is also be considered by the Larger Bench. Accordingly, we order notice and post the matter alongwith Civil Appeal of 2010 and SLP(C) No. 15770 of 2009 etc. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo prevailing as on date until further orders. Counsel of both the parties are permitted to raise all points before the Larger Bench. The True copy of order dated 29th November 2010 and the true copy of order dated 03.12.2010 of this Court are annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 respectively.
K.M.Mishra vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2008
We are also in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in K. M. Dixit (supra) and WP(C) No. 8841/2004 and other connected matters, which had been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would lose significance in view of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of N. K. Bhola (supra). More so, in view of the specific averments made in the said IA No. 1/2011 therein which was allowed by the Supreme Court.
Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. V.S.Engineering (P) Ltd on 16 November, 2006
7. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5042/2002 Union of India and Another Vs. V.S. Arora and Others with other connected cases decided on 31.05.2012. The issue considered by the Honble High Court was with regard to the below benchmark ACRs which were not communicated to the employees. The question considered what DPC should do with regard to those below benchmark uncommunicated ACRs? Should it ignore those ACRs or they should be communicated to the concerned employees even at that stage and they should be given an opportunity to move representations against the same and after the representations are disposed of, the DPC should be re-convened to consider the case of the employees for promotion? Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidars case (supra), the High Court held that uncommunicated ACRs ought to be considered but they are to be dealt with in accordance with the Instructions contained in Chapter 54 of the Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices. In other words, where one or more CRs have not been written for any reason during the relevant period, the DPC should consider the CRs of the years preceding the period in question and if in any case even these are not available, the DPC should take the CRs of the lower grade into account to complete the number of CRs required to be considered. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs should be taken into account. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
Union Of India And Others vs R.K. Anand And Another on 1 September, 2010
We are also in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in K. M. Dixit (supra) and WP(C) No. 8841/2004 and other connected matters, which had been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would lose significance in view of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of N. K. Bhola (supra). More so, in view of the specific averments made in the said IA No. 1/2011 therein which was allowed by the Supreme Court.
1