IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16776 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.9.2010 Union of India and others …..Petitioners versus The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate C.G.S.C. for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to impugne an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 4.5.2010 (P5). Counsel for the petitioner heard. As per records, respondent No.2 filed an application laying challenge to a decision of the authorities to keep order of the DPC, for grant of Financial upgradation to him, in a sealed cover. Vide the impugned order, to keep the decision of DPC in a sealed cover was set aside and it was ordered that sealed cover be opened and in case respondent No.2 was found eligible by the DPC for grant of benefit, the benefit accrued to him be given as has been given to his immediate juniors. It is apparent from the records that in the year 2004, as per letter of the Government dated 18.1.2007 (A2), respondent No.2 was eligible to get time bound first Financial upgradation. To get that Civil Writ Petition No.16776 of 2010 upgradation, the qualification was laid down by a letter dated 18.1.2007. Relevant provision reads thus:- “Eligibility: 1. Due Date: The date on which the Executive fulfills the qualifying service conditions for upgradation to next higher IDA pay scale as defined in sub para 3 below. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3.1 First Upgradation: The First upgradation of IDA scale of individual Executive will be due for consideration on completion of 4 (four) years of service in the current IA scale subject to the condition that the Executive’s basic pay in the current IDA scale has crossed/ touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his/ her upgradation is to be considered OR he/ she has completed 6 (six) years of service in the current IDA scale, whichever is earlier.” As per above said stipulation, if an executive has completed 4 years of service, he shall be eligible to get this higher pay scale. The Policy was issued in the year 2007, however, it was made applicable from 1.10.2004. As is apparent from the records and not disputed before us, in the year 2004, there was no handicap against respondent No.2, on the basis of which, above said relief could have been declined to him. By taking note of the same, respondent No.1 opined as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. Though the respondents have raised an objection with regard to grant of First Financial Upgradation to the applicant on the ground that he was facing major penalty charge sheet for un-authorisedly 2 Civil Writ Petition No.16776 of 2010 subletting the Govt. accommodation yet they have not placed on record any copy of that charge sheet issued to the applicant for the period which was relevant for considering his case for grant of these financial benefits. It is not disputed that the applicant had become eligible for IDA pay scale after rendering 4 years of service from 2000-2004 and at that time, the respondents have failed to prove that he was facing departmental proceedings or any charge sheet was issued to him for major penalty. Therefore, in our considered opinion unless something adverse are recorded in the ACRs, respondents can not keep the case of the applicant in sealed cover for infinite period merely on the ground that the applicant was found to have given Govt. accommodation on subletting and recovery was effected from him. The respondents have also not placed on record any documents to show that there are some adverse remarks against the applicant in this ACRs to scrutinize his eligibility. Therefore, for want of such vital documents it can not be inferred that applicant was facing any charge sheet during the relevant period from 2000-2004. 10. While coming to this conclusion, we are guided by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs. K.B. Jankiraman and ors, 1991 (4) SCC 109, wherein it has been held that if on the date on which the name of a person is considered by the DPC for promotion to the next higher post, such person is neither under suspension nor has any departmental proceedings been 3 Civil Writ Petition No.16776 of 2010 initiated against him, his name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought on the select list and the “sealed cover” procedure cannot be adopted. The recommendations of the DPC can be placed in a “sealed cover” only if on the date of consideration of the name for promotion, the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending and or on its conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority. It is obvious that if the Officers, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, was ultimately exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendation of the DPC would be opened, and the recommendation would be given effect to. 11. On perusal of Annexure A-3, which is the order of the Estate Officer, it is found that the said order is of 21.3.2007 and the recovery ten times of license fee for the period from 19.3.2005 to 16.5.2005 was to be effected, which is not a period relevant for the purpose of grant of First Financial Upgradation to the applicant. As admittedly he has become eligible for this benefit in 2004. Moreover, the order of the Estate Officer has already been quashed by the Learned District Judge, Firozepur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.02 of 2007 vide order dated 4.10.2008, Annexure A-5, wherein it has held that General Manager (Telecom) was not competent to give any direction for imposing penalty to the Estate Officer and the order for recovery was held to be not sustainable and was quashed and set aside. Therefore, all the pleas raised by 4 Civil Writ Petition No.16776 of 2010 the respondents to thwart the said benefit to the applicant are not accepted.” We are of the opinion that the order passed is perfectly justified. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to show us any rule/ instruction, indicating that if at the due time, there is no handicap against an employee, subsequently, when DPC is held, if in the meantime, he has incurred any dis-qualification, the benefit could be declined to that employee. Reference has been made to some instructions issued on 23.3.2010, which, we are of the opinion, are not applicable to respondent No.2. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Otherwise also, order passed is very innocuous. It has been held that if after opening the sealed cover it is found that respondent No.2 was found eligible by the DPC for grant of benefit, the same be given to him. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 17.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 5