AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil Kumar, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 740/2005, titled as "Dr.(Mrs.) Neena Sharma v. Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors." assailing the order dated 17th November, 2003 conveying to the Petitioner that her name has not been recommended for promotion to the post of CMO by the Departmental Promotional Committee (DPC).
The brief facts to comprehend the dispute between the parties are that the Petitioner is presently working as Senior Medical Officer (SMO) in ESIC in the scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200. The Petitioner was appointed as IMO Grade-II, on regular basis on 14th May, 1992 in ESIC and she was further promoted as SMO on 14th May, 1996 after completing four years of regular service as IMO, Grade-II. The next promotion is to the post of Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the grade of Rs. 12,000-375-18,000/-. The Petitioner was considered for the promotion to the post of CMO by the DPC held on 29th July, 2003, however she was not considered fit for promotion as conveyed to her by memo dated 17th November, 2003 which was challenged by the Petitioner and in light of No. action being taken by the Respondents, it was subsequently impugned before the Tribunal. The grievance of the Petitioner was that she had received adverse remarks in her ACRs for the year 1998-1999 which were expunged before the date of DPC meeting. The Petitioner had also contended that during the period of 1997-1998 to 2001-2002, she had received the grading of "good" for 1997-98 and thereafter she was rated as "average" in the following years, as a result of which she was declared unfit by the DPC. In the circumstances, the Petitioner had contended that the "average" grading given after the "good" grading received in the year 1997-1998, should have been communicated to her as it was below the benchmark for promotion.
The Petitioner, in the circumstances, had sought communication of the ACRs which were below the benchmark and conducting a review DPC meeting for consideration of her promotion with retrospective effect and seniority.
The petition was contested by the Respondents contending, inter-alia, that the Respondents had followed the rules in respect of promotions and the case of the Petitioner does not warrant a review DPC. It was also contended that in any case the original application filed on 31st March, 2005 was hopelessly time barred as it was pertaining to the memo dated 17th November, 2003. Before the Tribunal, the original records of the ACR of the Petitioner was also produced and perused by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted that the Senior Medical Officers are promoted as CMOs on completion of 6 years of regular service as Senior Medical Officer, or on completion of 10 years of combined regular service as Medical Officer and Senior Medical Officer of which at least 2 years service has to be as a Senior Medical Officer on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness subject to clearing the benchmark of "good" with No. zone of selection and without linkage to vacancies. It was also held that such promotions are to be in situ and personal to the officers promoted.
Considering the precedent relied on by the parties, U.P. Jal Nigam and others Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others, and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Major Bahadur Singh, the Tribunal had held that there was No. infirmity in the procedure adopted by the Respondents by following the recommendations of the High Power Committee (Tikku Committee) dated 14th November, 1991. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had held that the case of the Petitioner does not warrant any review DPC since as per DOP& T OM No. 22013/97-Estt.(D) dated 13th April, 1998 it was categorically stipulated that the primary objective of holding review DPC is to rectify any mistake that took place at the time of holding the original DPC and the Tribunal was of the view that there was No. infirmity in the procedure followed by the Respondent.
On 6th July, 2011 an adjournment was sought on behalf of learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that she was indisposed and the matter was not taken up for regular hearing. The matter was adjourned at the request on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and it was allowed to remain on board in the category of "Regular Matters".
The matter was again taken up for regular hearing on 8th July, 2011, however, No. one had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. On that date No. adverse order was passed against the Petitioner in the interest of justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of "Regular Matters".
Thereafter, the matter was taken up for regular hearing on 12th July, 2011 and yet again an adjournment was sought on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that she was still not well, and therefore, the matter was not taken up for regular hearing and it was allowed to remain on board in the category of "Regular Matters".
The matter was once again taken up for regular hearing on 9th August, 2011 and on that date also No. one had appeared on behalf of the parties.
Today, as well No. one is present on behalf of the parties. In the circumstances, the Court is left with No. option but to dismiss the writ petition in default for non appearance of the Petitioner and his counsel.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. All the pending applications are also disposed of.