TUSHAR KANTI TA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 24-10-2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Jabalpur Bench, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in the matter of denying him the benefit of second up-gradation in accordance to Assured Career Progession Scheme(hereinafter referred to as "ACP Scheme),this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE petitioner hereunder was initially appointed as a Draftsman Grade-II on 10-12-1963 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.150-240/-. After passing the departmental examination some time in the year 1974, he was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500/- vide order dated 21-07-1999. Thereafter, in accordance to the recommendations made by the Vth Pay Commission an ACP Scheme was introduced w.e.f.09/08/1999. This Scheme contemplated a provision for grant of two up-gradation after completing 12 years and 24 years of service. The up-gradation was to be granted without any promotion and after fulfillment of certain criteria and benchmark for consideration as laid down under the Scheme. It is not in dispute that the petitioner became entitled to get benefit of the second ACP after completing 24 years of service w.e.f. 20-08-1999. However, when her claim was not considered and when representations in this regard were not considered, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur and filed O.A.No.807/2003. By order dated 16-12-2003 passed by the Tribunal, it was directed to the department to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision by passing a reasoned and detailed order. Despite the clear order of the CAT, Jabalpur, the department has not complied with the same and no action was taken. Therefore, the second application was filed which has been decided by the impugned order.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when ACRs was maintained by the department, it was the responsibility of the department as they are the custodian of the confidential report, the department is under a legal obligation to keep his confidential reports safely. If ACRs were not available, benefit could not be denied and therefore, holding that the act of the department in not entering the ACRs for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was the illegal act on the part of the department, because of the fault of the department, the petitioner could not suffer, relief is sought for. The first ground therefore, is that the petitioner should be granted benefit of up-gradation without any further action in this regard. Thereafter, it was submitted that if some ACRs which were below the prescribed benchmark they are deemed to be adverse and their communication to the petitioner becomes necessary. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (2009)16 SCC 146, it is contended that the petitioner was denied the second ACP based on Crs which were never communicated. The entire action of the DPC, therefore, stands vitiated, accordingly contending that the Tribunal has not considered these factors, interference is sought for.