MAKAM KISHORE KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash Office Memorandum No.BRDB/04/1826/EE(Civ)/2011/GE-1 dtd. 20/7/2011, issued by respondent No.1, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for upgradation of below bench mark ACR gradings has been rejected. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him non-functional upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.37400.00 to Rs.67000.00 with grade pay of Rs.8700.00 per month in Pay Band (PB-4) with effect from 1/7/2006 on the analogy of similarly situated persons.

(2.) The facts-in-brief, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in Border Roads Organization on 16/6/1992. He was promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) on 13/2/2001. In the year 2011 he received a communication dtd. 26/4/2011 from HQ Director General Border Roads informing him that although his name was being considered for promotion against the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), but since the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer has accorded below bench mark grading in his ACR for the period 1/4/2004 to 30/7/2007, as such he was asked to represent within 15 days from the receipt of said communication. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the representation in the month of May, 2011, however, the respondents vide office memorandum No.BRDB/04/1826/EE(Civ)/2011/GE-1 dtd. 20/7/2011, impugned herein, rejected the same. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the respondents on similar issue had given promotion to one Bharat Singh Panwar, Executive Engineer (Civil) to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) after the writ petition being WP(C) No.2494/2011 filed by him was allowed by the High Court of Gauhati vide judgment and order 3/8/2012. Learned counsel further argued that the case of petitioner was considered by the Screening Committee by taking into account the adverse entries recorded in his ACRs, which were not communicated to him. The ACRs were communicated to the petitioner very belatedly and when represented against the same, it was rejected without any proper consideration. The procedure followed in grading him in his ACRs by the respective authorities was not inconformity with the applicable guidelines. On merit also, learned counsel argued that assessment of the petitioner was not proper and he could not have been graded below the bench mark.