CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK CORAM:

Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 19.0 6.2025 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Archana Lakra, aged about 36 years, D/o Sri Francis Lakra, Resident of 971, Saket Extension Champa Nagar Manegwan Ranjjhi, Dist-Jabalur .

(M.P) now working as Deputy Manager SAIL Steel Authority of India Limited, Odisha ……Applicant VERSUS Union of India, represented through its Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Rourkela, At/P.O-

Rourkela, Dist- Sundargarh, Odisha.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. A.Swain, Counsel For the respondents O : R M r D. H .EM . DRh al, Mr. G.C.Sahu, Counsel PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

In this case, it is not in dispute that promotion from E-2 to E-3 under the SAIL/Respondents is governed by a set of rules wherein it has been provided as under:

“6.3.2 For promotion from E-2 to E-3 grade An executive in E-2 grade shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to E-3 grade; subject to following:

a) The executive is having minimum of 3 years'

service in the E-2 grade.

b) He/she possesses a minimum qualification of Graduation/Diploma in Engineering or equivalent.

c) The executive has qualified the mandatory "On-

Line Test" during the eligibility period.

d) He/she has earned 110 Credit Points on the basis of his/her appraisal ratings in the grade. The credit points will be regulated as prescribed in the Rules.

He/she will be promoted, if found suitable by the DPC; subject to Department Clearance and Vigilance Clearance.”

2. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was promoted to E-2 grade on 30.06.2019. She was due for promotion to E-3 on 30.06.2022. She had acquired all the eligibility conditions for consideration for promotion from E-2 to E-3. Her case was considered with other eligible officers. But, she was not given promotion while promotions were given to others in E-3 case. Her case w.e.f. 30.06.2022. However, subsequently, she was promoted to E-3 grade w.e.f. 30.06.2023. She made representation against her non-promotion to E-3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022 and alleging non- consideration of her representation, she approached this Tribunal earlier. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the respondents intimated the reasons of her non-promotion to E-3 along with others thereby declining for promoting her to E-3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022. The reasons for denying her promotion as stated by the respondents are that she was required to score minimum 110 credit points/marks in the last three years whereas she had secured only 90 credit points for which DPC did not find her suitable for promotion based on the credit points. The above aspect was communicated to her in letter dated 20.05.2023. In the above circumstances, she has approached this Tribunal in the instant OA praying to quash the communication dated 20.05.2023 and to direct the respondents to promote her to E- 3 w.e.f. 30.06.2022. The applicant in support of her relief has taken several points but Ld. Counsel for the applicant confined his argument to the extent that the credit points/marks is awarded based on the performance appraisal report of an employee. She was never communicated any shortcoming/shortfall or any reprimand insofar as discharging her duties for last three years. Thus, recording below benchmark in performance appraisal report without any evidence or communication amounts to making the report behind the back and acting on the same in violation of the cardinal principle of natural justice. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placeGdu rredliiaanl cSei nongh t hFei jdjie cVissi oSntast oef othf eP Hunonja’bbl ea nAdp eOx rCsourt in the cases of Sukhdev Singh Vs UOI & Ors, , (1979D)e 2v DSCuCt t3 V6s8 U, nion of India & Ors, (2013) 9 SCC 566, and AIR 2008 SC 2513.

3. On the other hand, the main plank of the submission of the respondents counsel is that making the rating on the performance ap