Hari Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

1. On 30.3.2011 counsel appeared for the respondents but wrongly stated that he was appearing only for R-1 and as a result notice was issued to R-2 & R-3, returnable for 16.5.2011. On said date, learned counsel appeared for all the respondents and was granted 10 days' time to file a counter affidavit. None being filed, on 1.6.2011 further time was granted to file counter affidavit and matter was listed for hearing today.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the facts pleaded in the writ petition are not in dispute hence the writ petition can be disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2008 (8) SCC 725 Dev W.P. (C) 2144/2011 1. 2011:DHC:18056-DB U- Putt Vs. UOI followed in the decision reported as 2009 (16) SCC 146 Abhiiit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. UOI & Ors.

3. Undisputably the Bench Mark prescribed was 'Very Good'. The petitioner lost out on account of the fact that for certain years he had been graded below the Bench Mark which below Bench Mark gradings were never conveyed to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation their against. The result was that the petitioner lost out promotion to the post of Deputy Director and further as a Director. Though the petitioner earned a promotion later on, but was superseded.

4. Following the law laid down in Dev Putt's case (Supra) and Abhiiit Ghosh Pastidar's case (Supra), we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to convey the below Bench Mark grading to the petitioner to whom we give a right to make a representation against the same. The representation would be considered by an officer senior to the ones who had a role to play in the writing of the ACR(s). If the ACR(s) are upgraded, review DPC would be held as of the date when pursuant to the DPC held, persons juniors to the petitioner were promoted, firstly as a Deputy Director and then a Director. If the petitioner acquires the Bench Mark, his promotions would be anti-dated and suffice would it be to state that the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages. However, for purposes of pension, since petitioner has already retired, notional pay fixation would be done and on that basis pension would be paid hence forth.

5. Needful would be done within a period of 12 weeks from W.P. (C) 2144/2011 2 / •• r today.

6. No costs.

7. Dasti.

AUGUST 11, 2011 rs W.P. (C) 2144/2011 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J IL GAUR, J