KISHORE KUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail order dtd. 15/9/2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3278/2018. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner, wherein he had prayed that he be granted benefit of 3rd MACP with effect from 1/9/2008, by ignoring his ACRs for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, on the ground that even though he had been downgraded from 'very good' to 'good' in the said ACRs, the same were never communicated to him.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the erroneous premise that there was no requirement for the respondents to communicate to the petitioner his ACRs for the period between 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, wherein has was downgraded from 'very good' to 'good'. The Ld. Tribunal, he urges, failed to appreciate that once the petitioner had been granted below benchmark gradings in his ACRs for the aforesaid three years, the same ought to have been communicated to him well in time, so that he could seek upgradation thereof by filing timely representations. He, therefore, contends that, now after more than 20 years when neither the Reporting Officer nor the Reviewing Officer are available, any representation for upgradation made by him would be a futile exercise. The petitioner's case for grant of benefit of 3rd MACP w.e.f.,1/9/2008 ought to, therefore, be considered by ignoring the aforesaid three ACRs, which were admittedly 'below benchmark' entries.

(3.) In support of his plea that every entry in ACRs of an employee which is a below benchmark entry, must be communicated to them, he places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India, 2008 (8) SCC 725. Further, by placing reliance on a recent decision dtd. 23/9/2022 in Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1291, he contends that the petitioner's case for grant of third MACP, should be considered by ignoring the aforesaid three ACRs, which were admittedly not communicated to him. He, therefore, prays that impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for grant of MACP w.e.f., 1/9/2008.