SUBRATA BANGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed (i).for quashing order dated 06.09.2010, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 11.05.2010 against recording of below bench mark grading in his ACR, now called as Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the period from 11.04.2005 to 30.11.2005 has been rejected; (ii).for quashing order dated 14.09.2010 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 11.05.2010 against recording of below against recording of below bench mark grading in his ACR, for the period from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 has been rejected; also (iii).for quashing order dated 29.09.2010 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 11.05.2010 against recording of below against recording of below bench mark grading in his ACR, for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 has been rejected; (iv).for quashing order dated 25.01.2001 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2009 has been disposed of with concluding order that " in view of the facts on record, petitioner cannot be granted promotion for the reasons as mentioned above" and also (v).for quashing order dated 05.10.2009 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2009 has been disposed of with the concluding order that "in view of the fact on record, Shri Subrata Banga, Commandant cannot be granted promotion for the reasons as mentioned above" and further for direction upon the respondents to reconsider their orders/decisions of grading below benchmark in ACR of petitioner for the aforesaid period and reconsider the petitioner's plea of claim for his promotion to the post of Senior Commandant and further dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2010 made by the petitioner with regard to the APAR from 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2009.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.01973 in C.I.S.F and after discharging his duties for about four decades on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 30.11.2011. It has further been averred that while the petitioner was posted as Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, IOC, Gauhati, the part annual confidential report recorded for the period from 11.04.2005 to 30.11.2005 contains some adverse remarks, aggrieved thereof the petitioner represented before the authorities, which was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2006. Further, while the petitioner was posted as Commandant, CISF Group, Headquarter, Kochin other commandants were promoted, save and except the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner represented before the authorities, but it did not evoke any response, which compelled the petitioner to move before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela at Ernakulam by filing W.P.C No. 14949 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.06.2009. Pursuant to which, the representation of the petitioner dated 17.03.2009 was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2009 stating therein that in the duly convened DPC the petitioner was assessed "unfit" as he failed to achieve the required benchmark. Later on, the petitioner received a letter dated 23.04.2010 whereby it was informed that the petitioner has been granted below benchmark for the following periods:

(3.) Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned C.G.C being assisted by Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Associate Counsel to learned C.G.C for the respondents.