NEENA SHARMA Vs. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.740/2005, titled as 'Dr.(Mrs.) Neena Sharma v. Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors.' assailing the order dated 17th November, 2003 conveying to the petitioner that her name has not been recommended for promotion to the post of CMO by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC).

(2.) THE brief facts to comprehend the dispute between the parties are that the petitioner is presently working as Senior Medical Officer (SMO) in ESIC in the scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200. THE petitioner was appointed as IMO Grade-II, on regular basis on 14th May, 1992 in ESIC and she was further promoted as SMO on 14th May, 1996 after completing four years of regular service as IMO, Grade-II. THE next promotion is to the post of Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the grade of Rs. 12,000-375-18,000/-. THE petitioner was considered for the promotion to the post of CMO by the DPC held on 29 th July, 2003, however she was not considered fit for promotion as conveyed to her by memo dated 17th November, 2003 which was challenged by the petitioner and in light of no action being taken by the respondents, it was subsequently impugned before the Tribunal. THE grievance of the petitioner was that she had received adverse remarks in her ACRs for the year 1998-1999 which were expunged before the date of DPC meeting. THE petitioner had also contended that during the period of 1997-1998 to 2001-2002, she had received the grading of 'good' for 1997-98 and thereafter she was rated as 'average' in the following years, as a result of which she was declared unfit by the DPC. In the circumstances, the petitioner had contended that the 'average' grading given after the 'good' grading received in the year 1997-1998, should have been communicated to her as it was below the benchmark for promotion.

(3.) CONSIDERING the precedent relied on by the parties, U.P.Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1661; and Union of India and Anr. v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2005) 9 SCALE 459, the Tribunal had held that there was no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondents by following the recommendations of the High Power Committee (Tikku Committee) dated 14th November, 1991. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had held that the case of the petitioner does not warrant any review DPC since as per DOPand T OM No. 22013/97-Estt.(D) dated 13th April, 1998 it was categorically stipulated that the primary objective of holding review DPC is to rectify any mistake that took place at the time of holding the original DPC and the Tribunal was of the view that there was no infirmity in the procedure followed by the respondent.