Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10596
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J), Amit Sahai, Member (A)
Subhash Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Indian Council of Agriculture Research – Respondent
Original Application No. 290/00149/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr S.P. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr Salil Trivedi
Uncommunicated 'Good' ACRs meeting old promotion benchmark cannot be retrospectively deemed adverse under new numerical system without violating communication requirement and natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Promotion - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Communication requirement - Uncommunicated ACRs with 'Good' grading, sufficient under old benchmark system for promotion from T-3 to T-4, cannot be retrospectively treated as adverse under new numerical grading system (67% marks required) introduced subsequently - New guidelines cannot violate principles that uncommunicated entries cannot be used to deny promotion - Employee must be communicated all ACR entries to enable improvement and representation - Promotion due w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to be considered under pre-numerical criteria. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Retrospective application of rules - Promotion rules prevailing prior to amendment govern assessment periods before new rules - 'Good' ACRs benchmark for T-3 to T-5 promotions under earlier system (para 3(v) of 27.03.2001 communication) - Numerical conversion rendering 'Good' (40%) insufficient violates natural justice and Article 14. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, a technical employee at T-3 grade, appointed in 1988 under 1975 Rules with merit promotion system, granted prior promotions and increments. Next assessment due w.e.f. 01.01.2006 denied based on uncommunicated 'Good' ACRs (2001-2005) failing 67% under 26.12.2005 numerical guidelines, though 'Good' was prior benchmark. Representations rejected; OA filed to quash denial memos and direct review DPC.
Findings of Court:
Impugned memorandum dated 17.05.2008 quashed. Respondents directed to convene review DPC for T-3 to T-4 promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2006 using pre-numerical criteria, grant promotion if eligible with consequential benefits including T-5, within six months.
Issues: Whether new numerical grading guidelines can apply to pre-2006 assessment period to deny promotion relying on uncommunicated 'Good' ACRs; validity of treating prior benchmark as adverse without communication.
Ratio Decidendi: Uncommunicated ACRs, even 'Good', cannot form basis to deny promotion; new guidelines cannot retrospectively impair rights under old rules or bypass communication mandate, enabling employee awareness, improvement, and representation - arbitrary otherwise, violating Article 14.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's career progression and promotion denials (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. uncommunicated acrs cannot deny promotion (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. applicant's argument on pre-2005 benchmarks (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents' justification for new guidelines (Para 5) |
| 5. quash memo and direct review dpc (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas
Being aggrieved by not acceding to his request for review DPC for the post of T-4 & T-5, the applicant has preferred this OA to quash and set aside memorandum dated 17/19.05.2008, 06/07.05.2010, 11/12.01.2011 & 10.10.2013 (Annex. A/1 to A/5) and to convene review DPC for the post of T-4 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 & for the post of T-5 w.e.f. 01.01.2011 with consequential benefits.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-
“2.1 The applicant after selection was appointed on the post of Lab Technician T-1 in the pay scale of Rs 975-1540/- vide office order dated 11.04.1988 (Annex. A/6). The applicant’s services were governed by Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) Rules, 1975 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1975]. According to Rule 6-I of the Rules of 1975, there is a system of merit promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancy in the higher grade or grant of advance increments in the same grade on the basis of assessment of performance. Vide office order dated 30.12.1994 (Annex. A/7), the applicant along with four other officials was granted advance increment w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Thereafter, vide office order dated 27.09.1996 (Annex. A/8), the applicant was granted promotion from the post of T-1 to T-2 w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Thereafter, vide office order dated 21/22.06.2001 (Annex. A/9), the applicant was granted two advance increments in the pay scale of Rs 4000- 6000 w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and vide office order dated 22.06.2002 (Annex. A/10), granted merit promotion from the post of T-2 to T-3 in the pay scale of Rs 4500-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.2001.
2.2 The next assessment of the applicant was due w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Vide memorandum dated 17.05.2008 (Annex. A/1), the applicant was informed that he was not found suitable for the next higher grade T-4 for the assessment period 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2005 as he did not meet the prescribed criteria for assessment merit promotion. Therefore, the supplementary assessment form for further re- assessment for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006 was directed to be filled up by the applicant.
2.3 It is the case of the applicant that during the entire period from 01.01.2001 to 31.05.2005, he was never communicated with any adverse or low grading. The applicant was communicated the ACRs for the period 2008-09 and 2009-2010 vide letter dated 18.10.2010 (Annex. A/13).
Prior to it, no ACAR/APAR was communicated to him.
2.4 The applicant made representation to disclose the reasons for not finding him suitable for promotion and also prayed to provide him benchmark criteria. Vide another representation dated 20.11.2010 (Annex. A/15) the applicant prayed to review the ACRs and award overall numerical grading 6 or above. His request was not acceded to vide memorandum dated 15.07.2011 (Annex. A/11). Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 19.07.2011 (Annex. A/4), the applicant was informed that assessment for the period 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 was placed before the assessment committee for consideration but the committee did not recommend him for promotion to next higher grade T-4 w.e.f. 01.01.2009. It is the grievance of the applicant that he was never supplied ACRs for the relevant period and also not disclosed the reasons for not granting him promotion. Vide representation dated 07.09.2011 (Annex. A/17), the applicant prayed to comply with the directions issued by the DoPT.
2.5 When the applicant received no response, he again made a representation dated 09.07.21012 (Annex. A/18) with request to review his case favourably and accord him promotion from retrospective effect, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Thereafter, the a
