ULHAS VAIDYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order wherein the claim of the petitioner for the post of Scientifc Offcer 'D ' with effect from 1/7/2015 and consequential benefts are denied.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Scientifc Assistant 'B ' on the establishment of respondent No.2 on 26/10/1995. The petitioner has performed his duties sincerely and with utmost integrity. His Annual Performance Assessment Grades have always been 'Very Good. '. The petitioner at no point of time is issued with any kind of caution nor is reprimanded in his entire service career. The petitioner was promoted to Scientifc Offcer 'C ' with effect from 1/8/2009. The next post of promotion in hierarchy is Scientifc Offcer 'D '. Upon rendering six years service as Scientifc Offcer 'C ', the person with Assessment grading of 'Very Good ' is entitled to be promoted as Scientifc Offcer 'D '. As per the norms of the promotion, petitioner becomes eligible for consideration for the next post on promotion after six years i.e. in July 2015. The petitioner was not informed about his candidature upto October, 2016. The petitioner made representation to respondent No.2 on 4/10/2016 raising the grievance for not being considered for promotion. The petitioner, thereafter, was called for interview on 17/1/2017 and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Scientifc Offcer 'D ' with effect from 1/1/2017. In fact, the petitioner ought to have been promoted on the said post with effect from 1/7/2015.

(3.) The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner made representation to the Grievance Cell. The Grievance Cell considered all the aspects of the matter and observed that the grades of the petitioner are 'Very Good ' in Annual Performance Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as, 'APAR '). The department did not process his case for promotion in July 2015 when he was qualifed as per the norms. There is no adverse noting of the Department. The Grievance Cell Committee recommended promotion of the petitioner with effect from July 2015 so that he may get benefts of 7th CPC. The report of the Grievance Cell Committee was forwarded to respondent No.3. The petitioner 's grievance was overlooked by the Chairperson, Apex Committee on Colaba Campus (hereinafter referred to as, 'ACCC ') on erroneous ground.