The court upheld the authority of the D.P.C. in assessing fitness for promotion and emphasized that non-communication of sub-par ACR entries did not warrant a review of the promotion decision.

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

The petitioner before this Court was applicant before Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. He filed O.A. No.97 of 2015 for quashing the decision dated 15.12.2014 where his demand for grant of benefit of promotion to Super Time Scale with effect from 18.1.2011, when his juniors were granted such benefits, was negated. This order was Annexure-A/8 to the O.A. application. The other relief prayed was for quashing of order dated 18.2.2015 where claim for interest on payment of DCRG was rejected by the Government. Quashing of this order was also prayed for which was Annexure- A/9 in the O.A. was application but annexed with an M.A. application filed in the O.A.

2. Petitioner is a promoted I.A.S. officer, who superannuated on 31.1.2011. His grudge is that even though his case was considered by the D.P.C. for grant of Super Time Scale in the meeting held on 6.1.2011 along with his batch mates of 1995, the juniors came to earn that benefit but his case was deferred on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary proceeding and his case was put in a sealed cover. The petitioner came to be exonerated of the charges vide order dated 1.9.2014, therefore, he pleaded that since he has been exonerated of the allegations, he deserves to be granted benefit of Super Time Scale like his juniors. He prayed for a pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with a grade pay of Rs. 10000. Subsequently, since there was delay in settlement of his post retrial dues due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, settlement of DCRG also get delayed on which he prayed for grant of benefit of interest.

3. The respondent State of Bihar contested the claim of the petitioner by taking a stand that a departmental proceeding vide memorandum dated 05.01.2011 was initiated. Case of the petitioner for promotion to Super Time Sale was placed before the D.P.C. on 06.01.2011. Since a disciplinary proceeding was pending, the suitability of the petitioner was considered and kept in a sealed cover, which, on opening, found the petitioner unfit for promotion as per the grading, which he had earned for the relevant period. After the closure of the departmental proceeding on 01.09.2014, the case of the petitioner was placed before the D.P.C., which met on 15.12.2015. The D.P.C. considered the case in the light of para 18.1. and para 8 (2) (d) of the guideline of promotion issued by the Government of India and Rule 2 (iv) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 2007. The Departmental Promotion Committee when opened the sealed cover, found the opinion 'unfit for promotion'. In addition to that, since the petitioner had superannuated on 31.01.2011, much prior to the closing of the departmental proceeding on 01.09.2014, there was no occasion to consider grant of promotion on Super Time Scale to such a candidate, who was not only found unfit by the D.P.C. but had also superannuated much earlier.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued before the Central Administrative Tribunal that his case was similar to the case of one Bhrigu Nath Dwivedi v. State of Bihar & Ors. and the order passed by the CAT in OA 143 of 2009. The date of passing of the order in the said OA is 02.04.2009 where a Co-ordinate Bench directed to hold a review D.P.C. for consideration of grant of Selection Grade from the date his juniors were granted, provided he was found fit.

5. The Central Administrative Tribunal went through the order passed in Bhigu Nath Dwivedi's case where relief was based on the set of facts where it was held that if juniors had been given promotion prior to the date of superannuation of the employee, in appropriate cases retrospective promotion can be ordered, if he was otherwise found fit.

6. The Tribunal did not disagree with the proposition as such but while dealing with the facts of the present case to be such, the said principle could not be applied across th