1

OA No.3171 of 2016

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi

O.A. No.3171/2016

Reserved on: 07.12.2022

Pronounced on: 06.01.2023

Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Shri Pravesh Kumar

S/o Sh. Bhagwat Singh Verma,

R/o G-543, Anand Vas, Shakurpur,

New Delhi – 110 034.

…Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand & Ms. Aanchal Anand)

Versus

1.Union of India through

Secretary,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

Nirman Bhawan, Delhi.

2.Director,

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),

New Delhi.

-Respondents

(By Advocate: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva and

Mr. Rohit Lochav)

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):

Learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:-

1.1The applicant joined AIIMS on 30.12.1994 as

Technician (Radiology) Grade-II and became entitled

for promotion to the post of Technician (Radiology)

Grade-I

in

2006. A

Departmental

Promotion

2

OA No.3171 of 2016

Committee

(DPC)

for

22 posts

of

Technician

(Radiology) Grade-I [UR-17, SC-03 and ST-02] was

convened on 01.08.2006 wherein candidature of the

applicant along with other candidates was considered

by the DPC. In the minutes of the aforesaid DPC

dated 01.08.2006, the Committee specifically observed

that candidature of the applicant was considered but

he was not fulfilling the benchmark ‘Good’ in his ACR

for the period 2004-2005. Hence, he was not

recommended fit for promotion to the post of

Technician (Radiology) Grade-I.

1.2The applicant was again considered for promotion in

the DPC held on 29.03.2007 wherein the Committee

specifically observed that after review of the C.R.

dossiers of the applicant, the Committee found that

the remark recorded by the authorities for the ACR of

the

year

2004-2005

is

‘Average’.

Hence,

the

Committee again did not recommend him

for

promotion as Technician (Radiology) Grade-I.

1.3Aggrieved, the applicant made various representations

before the appropriate authority regarding his non-

promotion as Technician (Radiology) Grade-I after the

last two DPCs held on 01.08.2006 and 29.03.2007

respectively.

3

OA No.3171 of 2016

1.4In the next DPC held on 02.03.2009, the Committee

observed in its minutes dated 02.09.2009 that the

matter of the applicant was under examination, and it

was informed by the Member Secretary of DPC dated

02.03.2009 that some mischief had been done with

the ACR of the applicant. Under these circumstances,

the post was kept vacant till the matter would get

finalized and his case to be considered in the next

DPC.

1.5It is only consequent upon the recommendations of

the DPC held on 16.07.2013, that the applicant was

promoted to the post of Technician (Radiology) Grade-I

in Pay Band-2 of Rs.9300-34800 + GP of Rs.4200/-

w.e.f. 17.08.2013, vide order dated 17.08.2013.

1.6Aggrieved,

the

applicant

submitted

various

representations for ante-dating his promotion as

Technician (Radiology) Grade-I w.e.f. 01.08.2006. A

review DPC was held on 07.08.2015 wherein it was

observed that –

4

OA No.3171 of 2016

(Radiology) Grade-I in its meeting held on 2^nd

5

OA No.3171 of 2016

Grade-I i.e. on 02.03.2009.”

1.7 On the basis of the recommendations of the review

DPC held in 2015, the applicant was promoted as

Technician (Radiology) Grade-I w.e.f. 02.03.2009 whereas

the contention of the applicant is that he should have been

given promotion from 2006 itself, as the fault of placing his

alleged ‘Average’ grading ACR of 2004-2005 before the DPC

held in 2006 was on part of the respondents and not of the

applicant. He further submitted that had his correct ACR

grading of 2004-05 been placed before the concerned DPC

in the year 2006, he would have been granted the

promotion

as

Technician

(Radiology)

Grade-I

w.e.f.

01.08.2006 itself. In support of his claim, the applicant

relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

in Dr. Sachdeva