Anil Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

On 9 May 2014, CSIR declared the result of the exercise conducted by the Screening Committee which met on 21 April 2014. The name of the appellant did not appear in the list of officers for financial upgradation from 10 May 2011.

The ACRs of the appellant were below the benchmark required for certain years namely 2003-2004, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

The gradings were eventually communicated to the appellant on 9 July 2014 to which he submitted a representation and appeared for the interview for regular promotion for 2013- 2014. The grievance is that the representation was not considered.When the panel for the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior Controller of Administration for 2013-2014 was notified, officers junior to the appellant were empaneled for promotion.

2 (2013) 9 SCC 566 3 (2009) 16 SCC 146 5 brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR

- poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.” In view of the above statement of law, both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of the ACRs for the relevant period.

The appellant has since retired from service on 30 6 September 2014.

The grant of MACP benefit is not a matter of right and it is after the Screening Committee finds that the officer meets the benchmark that an upgradation can be granted.

Hence, we are of the view that the appellant should be granted an opportunity, within a period of four weeks from today to submit his representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years where he did not fulfil the benchmark for financial upgradation. Upon the submission of his representation, the respondents shall consider it and communicate the outcome to the appellant within a period of two months thereafter. Based on that decision, the case of the appellant for financial upgradation shall be considered afresh. In the event his ACRs for the relevant period are upgraded, the case for financial upgradation shall be determined within a period of three months thereafter.

We also direct that in the event that the ACRs for the relevant period are upgraded, the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration shall be considered afresh by the Departmental Promotion Committee expeditiously. This exercise shall be carried out with reference to the date on which his junior in service came to be promoted.

In the event that the case of the appellant is considered favourably, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits which flow from the financial upgradation and upon the grant of regular promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary. 7

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

...…...….......………………........J. (DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD) …...…........……………….…........J. (HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI, January 21, 2019 8 ITEM NO.66 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32073/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-07-2016 in CWP No. 13390/2016 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) ANIL KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 21-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :