SUSHIL NARAYAN CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dtd. 11/11/2020, whereby in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 48(1) (b) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents issued notice to the petitioner that on completing 30 years of qualifying service for pension on 20/6/2019, he was retired from service on the forenoon of 1/3/2021. It is also the case of the petitioner that no adverse ACR had ever been communicated to him, and as such, the same could not have been taken for consideration in the review of his service beyond 30 years of qualifying service.

(2.) The respondents by their affidavit have stated that the service review of the petitioner was conducted on 3/3/2020, wherein he was recommended for further retention in service, but as it was discovered that the Service Review Board was not in order as per laid down policy, the same was rejected by the respondent No. 2 and thereafter, fresh Service Review Board was carried out on 8/8/2020. Thereafter, it appears the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 on being examined by the Service Review Board, he was found ineligible for further retention in service due to lacking in ACR criteria, and consequently his retention in service was not approved by the Board. It is also contended that in view of this aspect, retiring pension notice was issued by order dtd. 11/11/2020, fixing his retirement date on 1/3/2021, giving him a clear 3(three) months' notice, to which however, the petitioner never represented against.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner that this case is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dtd. 23/3/2022, passed in MC(WA) No. 64 of 2021 in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Joseph K.S, and that the petitioner shall therefore be entitled to similar relief. He submits that the ACRs were never communicated to the petitioner and that as per the recommendation of the Service Review Board (Annexure-12 to the affidavit-in-opposition), it is seen that the petitioner was not recommended for promotion only in the year 2015-2016, whereas his subsequent performance had been up to the mark and had been graded well thereafter.