Communication of aCRs within a reasonable period is crucial for fairness and transparency in public administration, as established in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. - REVIEW PET. 118/2021 & CM aPPL. 25628/2021 [application filed on behalf of the respondents for condonation of delay in filing the review petition]

1. The respondent-Union of India (UOI) has filed the present review petition under Section 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the final judgment and order dated 05.11.2019, passed by this Court in W.P (C) 12302/2018. Vide the said JUDGMENT, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed in the following terms:

'Consequently, the petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) appropriate orders will be issued by the Respondents within a period of eight weeks granting the Petitioner the benefit of the first and second aCP and MaCP by treating the period between the date of his retirement i.e. 18th June, 2008 and his reinstatement by the order 9th June, 2010, as period spent on service.

(ii) The Respondents will pay the Petitioner the arrears within a further period of eight weeks thereafter, failing which, the Petitioner will be entitled to simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay.

(iii) Within a period of eight weeks from today, the Respondents will issue the necessary orders as regards the promotion of the Petitioner as SI and thereafter as Inspector from the date his juniors were promoted and would be given all consequential benefits.'

2. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where liberty was granted to the respondents to file a review petition of order dated 05.11.2019 passed in the writ petition W.P.(C) 12302/2018, before this Court. The observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 05.01.2021 has been reproduced in the review petition as under:

'3) The submissions before this court is that the events which had taken place prior to the judgment of the High Court, were placed in the form of counter affidavit before the High Court.

4)Having regard to the nature of the nature of the above submission, we grant liberty to the Petitioners to move the High Court by way of review on the grounds which are raised in the Special Leave Petition. In the event that the Petitioners are aggrieved by the final judgment of the High Court in review, it will be open to them to pursue their remedies afresh including on the grounds which are raised in the present proceedings.

3. as per the review petitioners, an inadvertent error has crept in the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019 as this Court has failed to appreciate the fact that, below benchmark annual Confidential Report ('aCR') for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 were communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 06.09.2013 and the representation made by the petitioner on the same day against the adverse remarks for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 was rejected and these remarks were not expunged and this decision was communicated to the petitioner on 04.03.2014. Moreover, the petitioner had not submitted any representation against the adverse remarks in aCR for the year 2005-06.

3.1. So, this Court had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was ineligible for the first assured Career Progression (aCP)as he was granted promotion to the rank of Head Constable (GD) w.e.f. 10.10.1997. Moreover, he was not eligible for grant of second aCP since he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. However, the second Modified assured Career Progression (MaCP) was granted to the petitioner on 01.09.2008 and third MaCP was granted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 vide order dated 21.08.2017.

3.2. It has also been pleaded by the review petitioner that, if the petitioner is considered for promotion to the rank of aSI (GD), without considering the above-mentioned below benchmark gradings of aCRs for the year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 in the DPC List-C held on 05.05.2011 and subsequent DPCs, the same will be in contravention to the instructions of the Department of Personn