Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Dakshina Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No. 4937 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. Kavitha (for P.V.S. Giridhar & Sai)
For the Respondents: A.R. Sakthivel, Senior Panel Central Government Standing Counsel

Denial of Senior Time Scale based on below bench mark APARs is unsustainable when adverse remarks were expunged and three out of five APARs met bench mark; prior court order for confirmation with consequential benefits mandates grant.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 16 - Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Senior Time Scale - Grant after completion of 4 years of regular service - Bench mark of 'good' in Annual Performance Assessment Reports (APARs) - Requirement of three out of five APARs achieving bench mark - Effect of expunged adverse remarks - Applicability of Office Memorandum to future Departmental Promotion Committees only.

(B) Service Law - Probation - Reversion - A probationer cannot be reverted on basis of unsatisfactory performance when ACRs show 'good' grading and no adverse communication - Prior court order confirming probation with all consequential benefits entitles the officer to Senior Time Scale - Denial based on below bench mark APARs for years where adverse remarks were subsequently expunged is unsustainable - Once adverse remarks are expunged, the grading reverts to 'good' and must be considered for bench mark assessment.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an officer of a central security force, was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant in 2005. His probation was extended multiple times and he was ultimately reverted in 2009. The reversion was set aside by the High Court in a previous writ petition, which directed confirmation with all consequential benefits. The respondents later denied the petitioner's claim for Senior Time Scale with effect from 20.04.2009, citing below bench mark APARs for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. The petitioner had voluntarily retired in 2009.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the adverse remarks for 2005-2006 had been expunged, making that grading 'good'. For 2006-2007, the grading was 'average'. For 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, the petitioner had 'good' gradings. Thus, three out of the relevant APARs met the bench mark, satisfying the requirement. Additionally, the Office Memorandum of 13.04.2010, which required communication of below bench mark before DPC, applied only to future DPCs; the petitioner's due date for Senior Time Scale was prior to that OM. Therefore, the denial was unjustified.

Issues: (i) Whether the denial of Senior Time Scale based on below bench mark APARs is valid when adverse remarks have been expunged and prior court order mandated all consequential benefits. (ii) Whether the Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 applies retrospectively to deny Senior Time Scale.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the petitioner had the requisite number of bench mark APARs, the adverse remarks having been expunged, and the Office Memorandum did not apply. The prior court order confirming the petitioner's services with all consequential benefits encompassed the grant of Senior Time Scale. Hence, the impugned order rejecting the claim was arbitrary and unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to grant Senior Time Scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.04.2009 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances, re-fixation of pension, and arrears of pension with interest at 12% per annum for the period of delay, within 8 weeks.

ORDER

Challenging the rejection of request for grant of Senior Time Scale of pay (Senior Time Scale) through the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court seeking an issue of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order and consequently direct the respondents to grant Senior Time Scale to the petitioner with effect from 20.04.2009, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, allowances and re-fixation of pay and arrears of pension with interest at 12 % per annum for the period of delay. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. The petitioner had entered the service of the respondents force, namely, the Central Industrial Security Force, herein after referred to as CISF, as an Assistant Sub Inspector on 22.09.1997. The petitioner would submit that from the date of selection into the CISF he has been discharging his duties sincerely and in a dedicated manner, which has won several appreciations from his superiors. He was promoted as a Sub Inspector on 28.06.1982 and thereafter as an Inspector / EXE on 10.03.1988.

3. Thereafter, by order dated 18.07.2005, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant Commandant / EXE with effect from 20.04.2005 and was placed on probation as he was working in CISF Unit, ChPT, Chennai. The petitioner by order dated 07.09.2006, was transferred to the CISF Unit, ONGC, Nazira, Assam. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.09.2006, to the Director General, CISF, seeking deferment of transfer for a year on account of impending marriage of his daughter.

4. In his representation, the petitioner highlighted the fact that he has completed 12 years and 8 months of service out of Home Zone and after fulfilling his domestic commitments, he was willing to serve anywhere in the country including North Eastern region. However, by order dated 29.09.2006, the Senior Commandant, CISF, CHPT, Chennai, intimated that the petitioner was to be relieved from Chennai.

5. Since the order was passed while his representation was pending consideration, the petitioner had filed WP.No.46347 of 2006, challenging the order of transfer. Interim stay of order of transfer was issued by this Court on 22.12.2006. The petitioner on completion of his daughter’s marriage, which was one of the reasons for seeking deferment of transfer, the petitioner instructed his counsel to withdraw the writ petition and the same was withdrawn and the petitioner had joined the CISF Unit, ONGC, Nazira, Assam on 20.03.2007.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 01.05.2007, under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging that the petitioner had disobeyed the orders of the Commandant to report for duty at Assam.

7. A detailed explanation was given by the petitioner, despite which he was awarded punishment of withholding of pay by one stage for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension by an order dated 26.06.2008. After his retirement, the same was restored.

8. The petitioner would submit that despite performing his duties with diligence and dedication as an Assistant Commandant, his probation was extended by 6 months on four successive occasions and finally by order dated 17.07.2009, he was reverted back to the post of an Inspector / EXE on the ground that his services were not found satisfactory during the period of probation, which is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable considering the fact that the petitioner did not get any adverse remarks in his ACR for extended period of probation. On the contrary, he was graded ‘good’.

9. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 18.08.2008, to the 2^nd respondents pointing out specific shortcomings on the grounds for finding his performance to be unsatisfactory and that these shortcomings have never been communicated to him. In fact, the Unit Commandant by letter dated 11.07.2008, had appreciated his hard work. However, he has received a reply dated 07.10.2008, from the 2^nd respondents who has s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHonourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHAM.Dakshina Murthy – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentW.P.No. 4937 of 2022

Denial of Senior Time Scale based on below bench mark APARs is unsustainable when adverse remarks were expunged and three out of five APARs met bench mark; prior court order for confirmation with consequential benefits mandates grant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Dakshina Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No. 4937 of 2022