JUDGMENT :

ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners challenges the order dated 14.02.2020, passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), Patna Bench, Patna in M.A. No.50/391/2019, arising from O.A. No.-051/00215/2017, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. and directed to conduct a review D.P.C. of the respondent/applicant and if found fit, to grant him retrospective promotion from the year 2007 and 2011 respectively since his APAR for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 has been upgraded in 2011 by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 as also in the case of Dr. T.N. Wary (O.A. No.284 of 2010, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench).

3. Pleadings being complete, with consent of both parties, this writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. No order is required to be passed in I.A. No.1 of 2021.

4. The short facts of the case according to the petitioners are that:

(i) The respondent/applicant joined IRMS on 01.04.1998. For the purpose of consideration for promotion in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) for officers of IRMS, a Board (DPC) was constituted in the year 2007. The bench mark for promotion to JA Grade was “Good” as defined in Railway Board’s Letter No.2002/SCC/3/1 dated 03.06.2002 and 30.09.2002. A senior scale officer of IRMS was to be considered for promotion to JA Grade on completion of five years service in that Grade under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (DACPS). The previous year’s ACR (APAR) of the respondent/application for the year 2003-04 was ‘average’ and ‘not fit’. Similarly, the ACR for the year 2004-05 was ‘average’ and ‘not fit for promotion’. The ACR for the year 2005-06 was ‘good’. Both the aforesaid adverse remarks of the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 (Part-I and Part-II) were duly communicated and conveyed to the respondent/applicant vide ECR Letter No. ADM/ACR/Remark/03 dated 02.12.2005. The respondent/applicant responded by submitting his representation against the aforesaid ACR which was considered by the accepting authority and found to be unsatisfactory, which decision was conveyed to the respondent/applicant vide letter of even No. dated 29.06.2006 with the following observation:-

‘Hence I agree with the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period 2003-04 and 2004-05’.

On receipt of the aforesaid decision, the respondent/applicant preferred an appeal before the General Manager/ECR. The appeal was decided by the GM holding as follows:

‘I have gone through the records and I am constrained to direct that adverse entries shall remain’.

(ii) The DPC for promotion of JA Grade for IRMS Senior Scale Officers met on 11.05.2007 and found the respondent/applicant not suitable on the basis of the performance reflected in his ACRs. Again in the year 2008, the DPC met on 27.02.2008 and considered the case of the respondent/applicant, but found him not suitable for promotion to JA Grade.

Again in the year 2009, the DPC met on 04.02.2009 and found the respondent not suitable for promotion to JA Grade.

(iii) The respondent went on study leave w.e.f. 27.01.2006 and remained on leave till 04.01.2009 and joined on 05.01.2009. Therefore, in absence of ACRs for the years 200607, 2007-08 and 2008-09, his ACRs of the previous years of 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were considered in the DPC of 2007-08 and 2009 as aforesaid. Again in the year 2010, the DPC met on 04.02.2010 and found the respondent ‘not suitable’ for promotion to JA Grade.

(iv) The Government of India came up with a scheme for grant of promotion in the year 2009 known as “Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme” (DAPC)vide GOI notification dated 07.01.2009, which in terms of the scale extended upto Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in the Rail