Ashok Kumar Sehgal vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation (edmc)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1581

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S Khati, A
Ashok Kumar Sehgal – Appellant
Versus
East Delhi Municipal Corporation (edmc) – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr. S N Sharma, Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary

Original Application (O.A.) No. 3750/2018 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of order dated 06.09.2018 denying 2nd ACP w.e.f. 2003, 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2009, pay refixation, arrears, and pensionary benefits with interest post superannuation on 30.04.2017. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [2] (!) (!) (!)

Facts

Applicant aggrieved by refusal of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP solely on ground of missing ACRs for periods 01.04.1997-31.03.1998, 01.04.1998-31.03.1999, 01.04.1999-31.03.2000, and 01.04.2001-31.03.2002, impacting pension and gratuity based on last drawn salary. [2] (!) (!) (!)

Issues

Whether non-availability of ACRs justifies denial of financial upgradation benefits under ACP/MACP schemes. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!)
Appropriate procedure for Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) or Screening Committee to evaluate eligibility when ACRs are missing. (!) (!)

Legal Principle on ACRs and Promotions/Financial Upgradation

DPC must assess suitability based on service records, particularly preceding five years' Confidential Reports (CRs/ACRs), considering all CRs for relevant years if multiple exist. (!)
If one or more CRs/ACRs unavailable during relevant period, DPC must consider CRs/ACRs from preceding years; if not possible, from lower grade to complete required number; if still not, all available CRs. (!) (!) (!)
Non-availability of ACRs cannot fault the employee or justify denial of promotion/financial benefits; DPC must devise method to evaluate using available records, including prior/subsequent ACRs. (!) [p_19? wait, p_18 is (!) : "4. Having...", but numbered [5],[6],[7],[8]][6 in quoted] (!)

Findings and Ratio

Denial of 2nd ACP/MACP based solely on missing ACRs is improper; respondents must review applicant's case using available ACRs per established guidelines. (!) (!)
Absence of ACRs does not prevent rightful financial upgradation; Screening Committee/DPC to consider available records, ignoring missing ones if none available otherwise. (!)

Relief Granted

Impugned order dated 06.09.2018 quashed and set aside. (!) [9]
Respondents directed to convene Screening Committee, review case for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 2003 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2009 using available records, grant benefits from due dates with arrears, complete within three months from receipt of order. (!)
Non-compliance entails interest at GPF rate for delay. (!)
O.A. disposed of, pending applications closed, no costs. [9]

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“a) quash the Impugned Order dated 06.09.2018;

(b) direct the respondents to grant the 2nd ACP w.e.f. 2003 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2009 to the applicant with all the arrears;

(d) direct the respondents to pay the pension and pensionery benefits from its due date till realization with 12% of interest.

(c) Pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.

(d) Pay the litigation cost.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant filed the present Original Application challenging the order dated 06.09.2018 (Annexure A-1), passed by the respondents. The applicant is aggrieved by the respondents’ refusal to grant him 2^nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) and 3^rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) on the ground that the records

Click Here to Read the rest of this document