AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 04.11.2004, whereby his claim for grant of first higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.05.1994 is rejected. It is further prayed that second higher pay scale by given to the petitioner from 09.05.2003. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:--
Petitioner''s claim for grant of first higher pay scale was rejected by Annexure P/4. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP No. 1119/2000, which was decided on 28.07.2003 (Annexure P/5). This Court set aside the order of rejecting the representation and opined that censure is not a punishment and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for consideration for promotion from original date i.e. 07.05.1994. In L.P.A. No. 131/2003 the order of writ Court, aforesaid, stood modified to the extent Writ Court treated the matter is of promotion, whereas it is the case of grant of higher pay scale. Remaining order of the writ Court remained intact. In turn, respondents passed the order dated 04.11.2004 (Annexure P/1) and 01.11.2004, wherein it is mentioned that said benefit cannot be granted because he could not make the required minimum grading of 3(B) + 2(C).
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year ending 1992 an adverse CR was communicated to the petitioner. Against this, petitioner promptly preferred a representation (page 39). This representation, running in seven pages, was rejected by single stroke of pen without assigning any reason by Annexure P/9 dated 25.01.06. It is contended that the order does not contain any reason and therefore, rejection needs to be set aside.
Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and submits that the grant of higher pay scale is not automatic. It is subject to fulfilling of requisite criteria. The criteria was ACR of 3(B) + 2(C). The petitioner could not meet the said bench mark and therefore, the rejection order is in consonance with the policy. By supporting Annexure P/9, dated 25.01.2006, he submits that it is settled in law that the rejection order itself may not contain reasons and reasons may be mentioned elsewhere in the file. In support of this he relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, . He produced the original file/note sheet pursuant to said rejection order was issued.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The bone of contention of Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi is that if adverse CR of year ending 1992 is expunged or set aside, the petitioner will meet the bench mark. Rejection of said representation by non-speaking order is bad in law. This Court has considered the said aspect in 2012 (1) MPLJ 602 (Rajeev Kumar v. State of M.P.) after considering the various judgments on the point and after considering the Supreme Court''s judgment in S. Ramchandra (supra) on which reliance is placed by Shri Jain, this Court opined that the reasons can very well be recorded in the concerned office file. In the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra) no file was produced to show that reasons are recorded elsewhere. In the present case, respondents have shown the reasons. Reason reads as under:--
Review committee has decided in its meeting dated 23.01.2006 that in view of comments of reporting office & SE (L & M) Morena, representation is rejected.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid reason, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a reason, in fact it is a "conclusion". Review committee has not independently applied its mind and rejected the representation solely on the basis of finding of reporting officer. The representation of the petitioner was against the ACR recorded by reporting officer, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of review committee to examine the point raised in the said representation. This Court in Rajeev Kumar (supra) has considered the judgment of Supreme court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, . On the basis of that judgment, it was opined that the reasons are heart beat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, no conclusion can be permitted to stand. The reasons are required to be assigned in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial decisions. In view of the judgment in Kranti Associates (supra), the rejection order in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra) was set aside. The said case squarely covers the case in hand. Thus, I am unable to approve the reasons assigned by the review committee in deciding the representation of the petitioner. Resultantly, the rejection order on the basis of said note sheet cannot be permitted to stand. Resultantly, the rejection order Annexure P/9 dated 25.01.2006 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner against the ACR of the year ending 1992 and decide it in accordance with law within 90 days. If ACR is toned down or expunged and petitioner meets the bench mark of 3B + 2C, he shall be considered and given first higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.05.1994. The respondents shall consequentially consider the case of the petitioner for grant of second higher pay scale from due date in accordance with law. Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.