Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tandon vs Shri Apurva Chandra & Anr.

“10.

On simple perusal of above order and the case quoted therein it is very clear that it is identical in facts to the case before us. Hence, we have no doubt that the applicant has made out a clear case to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the OA is allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.10.2010, 06.11.2012, 23.01.2014 and 04.04.2014 are set aside to the extent they pertain to the applicant. The respondents are directed to have a review DPC for the applicant to consider his suitability for proforma promotion based on the ratio of the judgment (Supra) considering his ACR of 2001-02 instead of ACR for the year 2006-07 and if the applicant is found eligible, give him proforma promotion from the date of his immediate junior getting such promotion and to fix his pension and other consequential benefits accordingly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order….”

“14.

A perusal of the above would reveal that the below benchmark ACR was not communicated in time and the same was communicated after three years, by then the Reporting/Reviewing Officers had retired and when the representation was made by the respondent against the below benchmark entry, the competent authority without seeking the view of Reporting/Reviewing Officer, apparently, on account of their having retired, rejected the representation. The Tribunal, in the case of HS Acharya (supra), had directed that in a case where the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, who had initiated and finalized the report of the officer have retired, the DPC shall have to consider the report of the employee immediately preceding the first report which was under consideration, which determination appears to be just and proper.

15.

In the circumstances of the given case, wherein an upgradation is sought by an officer/employee, unless the comments of the Reporting/Reviewing Officers are available on the representation, the rejection of the same, based on the material already available, which the competent authority has no occasion to deliberate upon for lack of any personal information qua the officer and the circumstances in which the grading was made and whether on the grounds indicated by the employee, the same was required to be reviewed/upgraded and only in a mechanical manner, rejecting the representation, results in the employee literally being condemned for no fault of his.

16.

In view of above discussion, the directions given by the Tribunal do not call for any interference. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.”

“The President is pleased to promote Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tandon, Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) (Retd.) (D.O.B. 25.09.1953) from Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) level of General Duty Medical Officer sub-cadre of the Central Health Service to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000/- in the PB-4 with Grade Pay of Rs.10000 (revised-Level 14 of the Pay Matrix) plus NPA at the prescribed rates, of the same sub-cadre and services, under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme, w.e.f. 29.10.2008.

2.

The above promotion is in compliance of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad Order dated 11.05.2023 in O.A No. 533 of 2014 (upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) vide Order dated 01.07.2024 in W.P. 3755 of 2024.

3.

In the event of any officer, who is being promoted to the said post is on leave of any kind, except study leave/foreign assignment/deputation, etc. on the date of promotion, this order will take actual effect from the date he/she returns from such leave and assumes charge of the post.

4.

On promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade, the pay of the officer shall be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.37400-67000/- in the PB-4 with grade pay of Rs. 10000/- (pre-revised) plus NPA at the prescribed rates under Rule 13 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 as amended from time to time.

5 The seniority of the officers will be regulated on the basis of the inter-se seniority in the grade of Medical Officer of the Central Health Service or as may be determined by the Government in accordance with the relevant rules. The promotion to the grade of SAG does not involve change in the present place of posting.

(Pradeep Kumar)

Under Secretary to the Government of India”

“5.

That in reply to the contents of Paragraph No.4 of rejoinder affidavit, it is submitted that the applicant has made a representation dated 26.08.2025 to grant promotion to HAG in view of the judgment and Order dated 11.05.2023, which was forwarded to Ministry of Health & FW, New Delhi for consideration. In response, after careful consideration of the above representation, the Ministry has issued a letter No.C.17011/01/2024-CHS.II/8300346 dated 31.12.2025 to the applicant stating therein that

"2.

As per DoPT OM dated 24.04.2009 and FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) dated 01.08.2012, "All the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms including 'benchmark' for upgradation to a particular grade pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher pay scale under these Orders."

2 (i) Further as per promotional norms for HAG, as prescribed under CGHS Rules, 1996, "Supertime Grade Officers with three years' regular service in the grade of Rs.5900-6700, failing which Supertime Grade Officers in the Scale of Rs.5900-6700 with twelve years' regular service after being appointed or as the case may be, promoted to the level of Specialist Grade-I, Professor or Chief Medical Officer (NGSG)" are eligible for HAG promotion.

2 (ii) In terms of DOPT OM dated 18.02.2008, for promotion to the level 14 and above, the DPC has to ensure that prescribed benchmark of "Very Good" is invariably met in all APARs of five years under consideration.

3.

In view of the above instructions of DoPT and CHS Rules, 1996, for grant of NFU to HAG w.e.f. 02.07.2013 for the panel year 2013-14, "Very Good" grading in all the reckonable ACRS/APARs for the five years from 2007-08 to 2011-12 is required. Since your ACR for the period 2007-08 is below benchmark i.e. Good, you do not fulfill the promotional norms for HAG is not sustainable and does not require consideration.

4.

As regards your representation that in spite of the order dated 11.05.2023 of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad in Ο.Α. No. 553/2014 NFU (HAG) has not been granted, it is informed that you have neither sought / prayed in Ο.Α. Νο.553/2014 (filed in CAT, Allahabad Bench) for grant of NFU (HAG) nor Hon'ble Court has mentioned in its order dated 11.05.2023 for granting NFU to HAG. In pursuance to Order dated 11.05.2023 of Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad, you have been granted promotion to SAG w.e.f. 29.10.2008. The Copy of the applicant's representation dated 26.08.2025 and MOHFW, New Delhi letter dated 31.12.2025 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 & 2.”