Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13936
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, J, MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, A
A. Ganesan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.310/00485 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. M.E. Rani Selvam
For the Respondents: Mr. Su. Srinivasan
Public servants must be informed of adverse ACR entries to ensure fairness; however, significant delays in addressing such concerns may render claims inadmissible.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Communication of entries in ACR/APAR - It is mandated to communicate every entry in a public servant’s ACR to allow for improvements or challenges against adverse remarks - Denial of Selection Grade due to unsatisfactory grading in ACR, which was unknown to the applicant, is against principles of natural justice. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11, 18)
(B) Laches - Delay in filing petition must be justified; repeated representations do not constitute fresh cause of action - Filing OA after 5705 days is untenable without a valid explanation; represents a stale claim inadmissible in law. (Paras 10, 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
Applicant was retired without due promotion despite eligibility due to unsatisfactory ACR ratings. Requests for promotion were ignored without communication of adverse remarks, leading to this OA challenging the decision.
Findings of Court:
Court finds that the applicant’s delay in filing the OA renders it not maintainable, given the significant lapse of time and lack of challenge against performance appraisals.
Issues: The core issues were non-communication of adverse ACR entries and the delay in filing the OA with unexploited avenues for appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation to communicate performance ratings, stating a significant delay undermines the validity of such claims, holding that mere representations do not form a new cause of action for stale grievances.
Result: OA dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the applicant's qualifications and promotion claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' arguments on promotion denial and communication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on delay and non-maintainability of the oa. (Para 10 , 11 , 18) |
| 4. final conclusion on the merit and dismissal of the oa. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)
The case of the applicant is that with his educational qualifications of M.Sc., M. Ed., M. Phil., (Physics), he was appointed as P.G. Teacher (Physics) on 05.01.1980 in Railway Mixed Higher Secondary School at Madurai and after completion of 12 years of dedicated service in teaching, he was granted Senior Grade in the year 1992. Though he had all the requisite qualifications and experience for appointment to Selection Grade and became eligible for Selection Grade appointment in the year 2004 itself, he was denied the same and he was retired from service on st 31.01.2010. Though he made many requests to the 1 respondent and gave representations dated 28.10.2009 and 21.09.2022, the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated 30/11/2022, has given reply stating that applicant was not considered for the Selection Grade due to adverse remarks in his ACR (now called APAR- Annual Performance Appraisal Report).
2. It is further stated by the applicant that he was unaware of any adverse remarks in his APARs for the period from 2004 to 2008 and respondents had not communicated the same to him. Though he was eligible for Selection Grade in the year 2004 itself, the Departmental Promotion Committee met only in the year 2008 for considering appointment of Selection Grade Teachers from the year 2004 to 2008, although in the intervening period no selection was made. Hence the denial of chances of Selection Grade to him despite being eligible was not correct. Therefore, he has filed this OA seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated nd 30/11/2022 passed by the 2 respondent and consequently seeks a direction to the respondent to consider his for Selection Grade from the year 2004 and grant all consequential and attendant benefits of salary arrears from 2004 onwards and all the retiral benefits with appropriate interest.
3. Upon notice, respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Sh. Su Srinivasan and have filed their reply statement contending that the Senior and Selection Grade (non-functional) is granted only after screening for satisfactory performance by an appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee. However, the Departmental Promotion Committee, though considered the case of applicant, did not recommend him for grant of selection grade due to his grading in CR-Confidential Report (now APAR) for the periods ending in 2001, 2002 & 2003, which were Average, Average & Below Average, respectively. Therefore, the applicant's claim of non-consideration for appointment to the Selection Grade Teacher is not correct.
4. It is further contended that the Office Order No.13/2008 dated 12/08/2008 containing details of grant of Selection Grade to Railway School Teachers (Annexure A-2) was sent to the applicant, wherein the reasons for not recommending Selection Grade to the applicant is mentioned. The applicant neither challenged nor appealed against the said office order or performance rating at the relevant time. After lapse of 16 years, applicant is now challenging the orders passed in 2008, which is not maintainable on the grounds of delay and laches. Further, as per the record retention schedule, the preservation period for CR (Now APAR) is 5 years after retirement and the same has not been preserved at this distant date and hence copy of applicant's CR is not available with the railway administration.
5. It is further contended that the representation dated 15/11/2022 was received from Shri. Velayutham, brother of applicant through email, and not from the applicant directly. However, Railway administration has disposed of the said representation on 30/11/2022 and t
