TARSEM CHAND Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has remained unsuccessful in persuading the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') where he prayed for promotion from the post of Safaiwala-cum-Chowkidar to that of Peon because the Tribunal found that according to the criteria adopted for promotion, the work and conduct of the employee is seen from his ACR. If 50% ACRs out of last 5 reports are found 'Good' then subject to fulfillment of the requirement of the seniority, such employee is recommended for promotion by the DPC. The Tribunal has recorded the aforesaid view after perusing the minutes of the DPC held on 11.02.2005, which is discernible from the following paras of its judgment which reads thus:

(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Safaiwala-cum-Chowkidar on 09.05.1989 and he belongs to reserved class of citizen being SC caste. On 15.09.2004, two posts of peon were advertised in the English daily 'The Tribune', which were to fill up through promotion quota. The petitioner had duly applied against the aforesaid post but his junior, namely, Shri Shamsher Singh has been promoted. The representation dated 11.08.2005 made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of peon was disposed of on 19.01.2007. Accordingly, he filed an Original Application before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed on 03.10.2008.

(3.) The stand of the respondent before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that the service conditions of the Group 'B' and 'C' posts including Sweeper and Peon are regulated by Regulations framed under Section 24-B(ii) read with Section 24-B(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity 'the Act'), which are known as Chandigarh State Commission and District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh Group ('C' & 'D') Service Regulations, 2001 (for brevity 'the 2001 Regulations'). The 2001 Regulations were silent with respect to the method of appointment by promotion to Group 'D' Post, yet a promotion to higher post would involve an assessment of the past record of service. It has also been pointed out that the respondent-Administration follows the Rules and Regulations framed by the Punjab Government. In that regard reliance has been placed on the circular letter dated 10.01.2000, envisaging that an employee would be eligible for Assured Career Progression Scheme (for brevity 'the ACP Scheme'), if his overall service record was adjudged as 'Good'. The yardstick of assessment of past service record cannot be given a go by. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of the ACP Scheme because he did not have 50% good service record in the year 2005 and the benefit could be granted only in 2008 instead of 1998 after his service record was assessed to be good. It has been urged that the record of the petitioner for the last five years would show that he has less than 50% of good reports.