ORDER

Per Hon’bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07 January, 2011, so for it relates to the applicant, issued by the office of respondent No. 2, by which the applicant has been granted promotion to non-functional selection grade of Junior Administrative Grade of Indian Telecom Services Group ‘A’ w.e.f.

10.09.2009 to the extent that the date referred in the remarks column (w.e.f. 10.09.2009) may be quashed and in place of that 1st January, 2009 may be incorporated (Annexure No. A-1 to this OA). (ii) The applicant further prayed that in the interest of justice the respondents may be directed to hold a review DPC for consideration of his promotion at par with his batch-mates in the Junior Administrative Grade on regular basis w.e.f. 22.09.2008 i.e. 1995 batch and accordingly his seniority should also be fixed at serial No. 1430 instead of 1524 and thereafter the applicant may further be granted the non-functional Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2009 as has been granted to the all other ITS officers belonging to 1995 batch. (iii) To direct the respondents to make the arrears of salary after granting the non-functional Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2009 along with 8% interest thereon. (iv) To pass such other orders which are found just fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (v) To allow the original application with cost.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, an officer of the Indian Telecom Service of 1995 batch, was declared ‘unfit’ by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, hereinafter), which met on 17 & 19 September, 2008 for selection of officers to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG, hereinafter) for the vacancy year 2008-09. When the DPC met on 17 &amp; 18 August, 2009 to consider promotions for the vacancy year 2009-10, it found the applicant ‘fit’. Following representations submitted by the applicant, the respondents re-<br/>

evaluated the Annual Confidential Report (ACR, hereinafter) of the applicant for the year 2006-07 and upgraded it from ‘good’ to ‘very good’ vide order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure A-24 to the OA). The ACR for the period 10.08.2005 to 31.06.2006 was not altered.The applicant represented to the respondents for conducting a review DPC and for grant of consequential benefits. Not having received a favourable response, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3.1 The applicant contends that he was found ‘unfit’ by the DPC which met on 17&19 September, 2008on account of non-fulfilment of the prescribed bench mark ‘very good’ for the period 2006-07. As per the criteria fixed by the DPC, the candidate must have 4 ‘very good’ ACRs out of 5 ACRs considered. The DPC considered ACRs for the period 2002-03 to 2006-2007, i.e., 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-

06 & 2006-07. The applicant was awarded the grading ‘very good’ in his ACR for the period 2002-03; ‘very good’for 2003-04; ‘very good’for 2004-

05; ‘very good’for 2005-06 (for the period 01.04.2005 to 09.08.2005);

‘good’ for 2005-06 (for the period 10.08.2005 to 31.03.2006); and ‘good’ for 2006-07. As the ACRs for 2006-07 and 2005-06 (for the period 01.04.2005 to 09.08.2005)have been upgraded to‘very good’, the applicant now fulfills the prescribed bench mark, i.e.,‘very good’for 4 years or more. As such the applicant is entitled to be promoted from the retrospective date, i.e., from the date other 1995 batch ITS officers have been promoted.

3.2 The applicant contends that a review DPC should be held to consider his case following upgradation of his ACR for 2006-07, as he fulfils the eligibility criteria for consideration for the vacancies of 2007-

08 as well as 2008-09, and for grant of consequential benefits in terms of promotion from the date his batch mates were promoted and change in the date of grant of non-func