Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C.M. APPL.17864/2018 &17865/2018 IN W.P.(C) 4089/2007
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. Petitioners
Through :Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Sh. Anurag Sharma and Ms. Mona Sinha, Advocates.
C.M. APPL.17864/2018 &17865/2018 IN W.P.(C) 4089/2007
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. Petitioners
Through :Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Sh. Anurag Sharma and Ms. Mona Sinha, Advocates.
VERSUS
BRAHAM SINGH Respondent
Through : Sh. B.K. Berera, Advocate.
Through : Sh. B.K. Berera, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRATEEKJALAN ORDER 05.02.2019
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEPRATEEKJALAN ORDER 05.02.2019
C.M. APPL.17864/2018 (for condonation of delay in filing the application for recall of order dated 11.01.2018)
For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. Appl.
17864/2018 is allowed.
C.M. APPL.l7865/2018 (for setting aside orderdated 11.01.2018)
For the reasons stated in the application, the Court is of the opinion that the order dismissing the petition is recalled. C.M.
Appl.17865/2018 is disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed today in the application, the Writ Petition is restored to its original position on the file ofthe Court.
W.P.(C) 4089/2007
The grievance that the petitioner, i.e. GNCTD under Article
226 ofthe Constitution is with respect to the directions ofthe Tribunal
Page I of3 2019:DHC:7443-DB to grant to the respondent (the original applicant before the Tribunal, hereafter referred to as "the applicant") the benefits of the Assured
Career Progression (ACP), from the date claimed by him, i.e.
17.07.2000. The applicant's grievance was of denial of second ACP benefit in terms ofthe notification dated 09.08.1999.
The public employer, i.e. the Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi (GNCTD) had contended that the applicant's ACR was indifferent and was recorded as "average" for the concerned period. It, therefore, justified the denial ofACP benefits on the date it became due. It transpired that the so-called "adverse remark" was never communicated to the applicant, he, therefore, approached the Tribunal articulating the two grievances - firstly, denial ofthe ACP benefits and secondly the ACR reflected in his records.
The Tribunal, by its impugned order discussed the merits and was of the opinion that as on the date when the applicant's case for consideration was actually taken-up, the adverse ACRs had neve- been communicated to him. The Tribunal, therefore, directed consideration of petitioner's case by review DPC from the date he was entitled to, without taking into consideration the adverse ACR.
However, vis-a-vis his grievance with respect to adverse ACR, the
Tribunal declined the reliefto the applicant.
It is argued by Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel that the
Tribunal's approach is inconsistent. Having upheld the ACR entry which was adverse for the year 2000, it could not have, in the circumstances, also directed the GNCTD to consider and grantthe'
Page 2 of3 1° ACP benefits as though such adverse entry did not exist.
This Court has considered the submissions as well as the documents and pleadings on the record. That the ACR gradings were not communicated to the applicant is a matter of record. At the same time, the recording when communicated was challenged by the applicant. On that count, he did not succeed. Seemingly there seems to be contradiction in the Tribunal's reasoning inasmuch as the validity of ACRs have not been undermined. Nevertheless, this Court is ofthe opinion that the CAT placed the applicant in the position that he ought to have been on the footing that the uncommunicated ACRs could not have been taken into consideration while denying the ACP benefits. Given that the so-called adverse result, if any, from the impugned order of Tribunal would be of limited nature, and would operate for three years and also given that the applicant has since superannuated, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in interfering with the Tribunal's order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J p.^ PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 05,2019/ajk
Page 3 of3
For the reasons mentioned in the application, C.M. Appl.
17864/2018 is allowed.
C.M. APPL.l7865/2018 (for setting aside orderdated 11.01.2018)
For the reasons stated in the application, the Court is of the opinion that the order dismissing the petition is recalled. C.M.
Appl.17865/2018 is disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed today in the application, the Writ Petition is restored to its original position on the file ofthe Court.
W.P.(C) 4089/2007
The grievance that the petitioner, i.e. GNCTD under Article
226 ofthe Constitution is with respect to the directions ofthe Tribunal
Page I of3 2019:DHC:7443-DB to grant to the respondent (the original applicant before the Tribunal, hereafter referred to as "the applicant") the benefits of the Assured
Career Progression (ACP), from the date claimed by him, i.e.
17.07.2000. The applicant's grievance was of denial of second ACP benefit in terms ofthe notification dated 09.08.1999.
The public employer, i.e. the Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi (GNCTD) had contended that the applicant's ACR was indifferent and was recorded as "average" for the concerned period. It, therefore, justified the denial ofACP benefits on the date it became due. It transpired that the so-called "adverse remark" was never communicated to the applicant, he, therefore, approached the Tribunal articulating the two grievances - firstly, denial ofthe ACP benefits and secondly the ACR reflected in his records.
The Tribunal, by its impugned order discussed the merits and was of the opinion that as on the date when the applicant's case for consideration was actually taken-up, the adverse ACRs had neve- been communicated to him. The Tribunal, therefore, directed consideration of petitioner's case by review DPC from the date he was entitled to, without taking into consideration the adverse ACR.
However, vis-a-vis his grievance with respect to adverse ACR, the
Tribunal declined the reliefto the applicant.
It is argued by Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned counsel that the
Tribunal's approach is inconsistent. Having upheld the ACR entry which was adverse for the year 2000, it could not have, in the circumstances, also directed the GNCTD to consider and grantthe'
Page 2 of3 1° ACP benefits as though such adverse entry did not exist.
This Court has considered the submissions as well as the documents and pleadings on the record. That the ACR gradings were not communicated to the applicant is a matter of record. At the same time, the recording when communicated was challenged by the applicant. On that count, he did not succeed. Seemingly there seems to be contradiction in the Tribunal's reasoning inasmuch as the validity of ACRs have not been undermined. Nevertheless, this Court is ofthe opinion that the CAT placed the applicant in the position that he ought to have been on the footing that the uncommunicated ACRs could not have been taken into consideration while denying the ACP benefits. Given that the so-called adverse result, if any, from the impugned order of Tribunal would be of limited nature, and would operate for three years and also given that the applicant has since superannuated, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in interfering with the Tribunal's order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J p.^ PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 05,2019/ajk
Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT