Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J
Harmohini – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 6606 of 2019
Decided on : 20-07-2023
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Retired from service - Benefit of ACP Scheme - Petitioner has instituted petition stacking claim to benefits under ACP Scheme – There are no endorsements in ACRs of petitioner for years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 of reviewing and accepting authorities. (Para 4(iv))
Finding of the Court :
ACRs are to be made use of in service career of a government servant in several matters viz. determination of working/conduct, conformation, suitability for post, grant of senior scale, selection grade, promotion, punishment etc - There is no object in writing ACRs of petitioner for years enblock somewhere in year 2013 when petitioner stood already retired - Such ACRs cannot be held to be written validly - There are no endorsements in ACRs of petitioner for years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 of reviewing and accepting authorities - It is by now well settled that un-communicated adverse ACR entry cannot be considered for denying promotion/service benefits to employee - Decision of respondents in not extending benefit of ACP Scheme to petitioner, merely on account of un-communicated adverse entries in her ACRs for years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 and written in flagrant violation of instructions in place, is quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The case
Scenario in the instant petition is that annual confidential reports (ACRs) of the petitioner for the years 2006 to 2012 were written enblock by a person, who became petitioner’s reporting authority only in the year 2011. On the basis of adverse entries in the ACRs of the petitioner for these years, she was declined the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) commonly known as 04-09-14 Scheme. Petitioner has instituted this petition stacking claim to the benefits under ACP Scheme.
2. The petitioner was appointed initially as Drawing Master on contract basis in the year 1997. Her services were regularized w.e.f. 15.01.2003. On attaining the age of superannuation, she retired from service on 30.07.2013.
The petitioner had opted for the benefit of ACP Scheme (04-09-14). The Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kangra, after scrutiny sent her case back to the Principal of the concerned school i.e. GSSS Baroh, District Kangra, H.P. on 30.12.2015 with remarks that petitioner did not have good ACRs for the years 2006- 2011. The Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Baroh vide communication dated 18.01.2016 informed the petitioner that benefit of ACP Scheme cannot be granted to her in view of adverse entries in her ACRs for the years 2006 to 2011. In this background, the petitioner has instituted instant writ petition seeking following reliefs :-
“(i) That the impugned letter dated 18.01.2016 Annexure A-1 and letter dated 30.12.2015 Annexure A-2 may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to the respondents to grant Assured Career Progression scheme, i.e. (04-09-14) to the applicant from the due dates alongwith arrears and with interest @ 12% p.a. on the delayed payment.
(ii) That respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to hold a thorough and proper inquiry that how a person who was not even the Controlling Officer of the applicant, i.e. respondent No.4, written ACRs of the applicant for a period of five years and thereafter punish him in accordance with law.
(iii) That the OA may be allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 1.00 lacs for unnecessarily and frequently harassing the applicant and the same may kindly be ordered to be recovered from respondent No. 4 for his acts and deeds.”
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State and considered the case record. Common reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.
4. Observations
4(i) Following germane facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was serving as Drawing Master in Government Senior Secondary School Jassai, District Kangra during the years 2006 to 2012. Her ACRs for the years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 have been placed on record as Annexure A-3 colly. These ACRs have not been disputed by the respondents in their reply. The gist of these ACRs relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy involved herein is as under :-
“ACR for the year 2006-2007”
This ACR has been written by respondent No. 4 Vijay Kumar Awasthi on 17.11.2013 in his capacity as the Principal of the School i.e. the Reporting Officer. The final entry in the ACR has been recorded as “satisfactory as per available record for the year”. There is no endorsement in the ACR of any reviewing or accepting authority whatsoever. “ACR for the year 2007-2008” The petitioner has been graded as “not satisfactory” in this ACR by respondent No. 4. Date of writing of ACR has not been mentioned. Reference to some complaints against the petitioner has been made in some columns of the ACR. Endorsement of reviewing and accepting authority is not there.
“ACR for the year 2008-2009”
The ACR grades the petitioner as “satisfactory”. It is written by respondent No. 4 without mentioning the date of writing the ACR. Reference to some complaints regarding use of foul language
SupremeToday
Clause 19.15.5 of Chapter 19 of Handbook on Personnel matters Volume-II states that authority who had not seen work of subordinate for at least three months in concerned year should not write his ACR....
Every entry in an employee's ACR, including adverse remarks, must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period, ensuring the right to contest such entries, as established by the Assam S....
Non-communication of adverse ACR within the stipulated time period can adversely affect a government servant's career and should not form the basis for denying benefits, as established by legal princ....
The court holds that downgrading public servants' ACRs requires substantial reasoning and fairness; previous good performance must not be overshadowed by isolated adverse remarks without justificatio....
Non-communication of entries in Annual Confidential Report to a public servant has civil consequences affecting his chances of promotion and getting other benefits. Non-communication of adverse ACRs ....
The mandatory review of ACRs by the Managing Committee, the right of the employee to file an appeal against adverse entries, and the court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to is....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
