JUDGMENT :

B.K. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri I.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This special appeal has been filed by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has allowed WRIT – A No. 15535 of 1995 preferred by the petitioner/respondent Radha Krishna Tiwari before this Court.

3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the petitioner/respondent was appointed on the post of 'Draftsman' in Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “I.I.T. Kanpur”) on 05.02.1963 and was confirmed on his post on 11.02.1964. I.I.T. Kanpur was established by the Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. After coming into force of Indian Institute of Technology Act, 1961, it was incorporated in it. On completion of 14 years continuous service, the petitioner/respondent had become entitled for grant of 'time pay scale' subject to crossing of the 'Efficiency Bar'.

4. Deputy Registrar (Admin) of I.I.T. Kanpur, by his letter dated 14.01.1987, informed the petitioner/respondent that he was not allowed to cross the 'Efficiency Bar' w.e.f. 01.02.1977. The petitioner/respondent represented before Deputy Registrar (Admin) upon receiving the aforesaid letter which remained pending before him. The petitioner/respondent sent reminders on 24.01.1994, 08.02.1994 and 14.11.1994 to the Deputy Registrar (Admin) for deciding his representation. Eventually the petitioner/respondent's representation was rejected by appellant/respondent no. 2 by order dated 19.04.1995. The letter dated 19.04.1995 contained a recital that upon examination of his case file, it was found that his work was poor with no work output and hence, it was decided to hold his 'Efficiency Bar' right from 1977.

5. Challenging the aforesaid letter dated 19.04.1995 issued by the appellant/respondent no. 2, the petitioner/respondent filed WRIT – A No. 15535 of 1995 before this Court.

6. Before the writ court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent that 'Annual Confidential Report' of each employee is required to be recorded in his service book once in every year. On completion of 14 years of continuous service, the petitioner/respondent had become entitled to 'time pay scale' subject to his crossing of 'Efficiency Bar' under the Service Rules. 'Efficiency Bar' was assessed on the basis of 'Annual Confidential Report' and since admittedly, no entries were recorded in the service book of the petitioner/respondent upto 1994, there was no material before the appellant/respondent no. 2 to assess the work and conduct of the petitioner/respondent. It is further contended that the petitioner/respondent had been taking an active role in the Worker's Union and had also held posts from time to time and due to the aforesaid reason, he was not able to cross the 'Efficiency Bar'. It was further contended that Fundamental Rules provided that when the 'Time Pay Scale' becomes due, the competent authority is required to assess the efficiency of the employee for the purpose of his being allowed to cross the 'Efficiency Bar' which is a condition precedent for grant of 'time pay scale' and if the competent authority decides to withhold 'Efficiency Bar', in that case competent authority is required to communicate its decision to the concerned employee immediately and the competent authority is required to assess the 'Efficiency Bar' of the concerned employee in every year or subsequent to the year in which the 'Efficiency Bar' is withheld. The competent authority in the instant case did not assess the work and conduct of the petitioner/respondent either in the year 1977 or in the subsequent years thereafter, while letter dated 14.01.1987 was issued informing the petitioner/respondent that he was not allowed to cross t