AJAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED & PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in the above-captioned four petitions seek antedating of their promotion on the post of Deputy Manager (Technical). Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Annual Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as "APAR") of petitioner-Ajay Kumar of the year 2004-05 was reviewed in the year 2015 from "Average" to "Good" and so, petitioner has to be promoted from the year 2008 and not from the year 2009. It is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that in case of petitioner-Gopal Singh, APARs of the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were reviewed in the year 2015 and so, his promotion is to be given effect from October, 2010 instead of October, 2012. In case of petitioner-Yamuna Prasad, it is pointed out by petitioners' counsel that his APAR of the year 2009-10 has been upgraded in the year 2015 and so, his promotion is also to relate back from the year 2010 instead from the year 2012. Regarding petitioner-V.P.Singh, it is submitted that his APAR of the year 2003-04 has been reviewed in the year 2015 and so, his promotion has to also relate back to November, 2007 and not from the year 2008.

(2.) It is submitted by both the sides that the question involved in the above-captioned four petitions is identical and so, these petitions have been heard together and by this common judgment, they are being decided.

(3.) It is matter of record that petitioner-Ajay Kumar Representation has been decided by the Committee of Directors on 17th December, 2015 and as per minutes of aforesaid meeting (Annexure R1/10), upon review of petitioner's APARs, it was found to be untenable to antedate petitioner's promotion as the review of APARs was for future Department Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") and of APARs of reckonable period. It is evident from the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Directors of respondent-Corporation (Annexure R1/10) that antedating promotion after upgradation of APARs, which have been already considered in the past DPCs, will open pandora-box and such reconsideration, in turn, will make the situation complex for the Management of respondent-Corporation. So, Representation of petitioner-Ajay Kumar has been rejected while referring to DoPT's Guidelines and earlier Resolution of the Board of Directors of respondent-Corporation. It is also matter of record that Representations of remaining three petitioners have not been considered by respondentCorporation.