Dr. Prem Kumar vs Union Of India

L. Narasimha, Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the year 1985. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer (SMO) and then to Chief Medical Officer (CMO). The applicant became eligible to be considered for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in the year 2008. The DPC for this purpose was held in July, 2010. However, it was found that the ACR of the applicant for three years were below benchmark. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, the ACRs of three years were furnished to the applicant to enable him to make a representation. On his part, the applicant made a representation on 03.08.2010 to the competent authority.

Through the Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2011, the Competent Authority upgraded the ACRs of the applicant for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-05 to the level of 'Very Good'. However, the ACR for the year 2005- 6 was left at the level of 'Good'. That in turn, resulted in the denial of promotion to the applicant when the DPC met. The applicant addressed a letter dated 14.12.2012, feeling aggrieved by denial of upgradation of ACRs for the year 2005-06. The same was replied through OM dated 08.02.2013. The applicant feels aggrieved by the same and accordingly filed this OA.

The applicant contends that the very purpose of communicating the adverse below benchmark ACRs was to enable the employee to make a representation and the competent authority was under obligation to deal with the ACRs of each and every year. He contends that the Competent Authority did not deal with the matter by himself and the entire work was entrusted to a Committee. He submits that though the same may have been resorted to on account of large number of representations, he would have got the adequate relief, had the competent authority considered the ACRs for the year 2005-2006, himself.

Respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. It is stated that the below benchmark ACRs were communicated to the applicant, as required under the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent past and that the representation made by the applicant was considered, in accordance with law.

We heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Satish Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

It must be said to the credit of the competent authority that faced with several representations that came to be made in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in all fairness, he constituted a Committee, which in turn, dealt with each and every ACR with reference to representations and made recommendations. Strictly speaking, this may amount to delegation of powers not authorised by law. However, since it has resulted in an objective consideration, we do not treat it as a deviation from any other matter. The limited grievance of the applicant is only about the ACR for the year 2005-06.

He is confident that had the Competent Authority dealt with the representation pertaining to the ACRs, he would have got adequate relief. We are of the view that though the procedure adopted by the Competent Authority, as regards various ACRs, cannot be treated as unfair, the ACR of the applicant for the year 2005-06 deserves to be considered by him.

We therefore, allow the OA and set aside the impugned order. We direct the Competent Authority to consider the representation of the applicant vis-a-vis the ACRs of the year 2005-06 by himself and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to mention that in case the ACR of the applicant for the year 2005-06 is upgraded, the consequential reliefs shall be granted to him, in terms of the relevant OMs.

There shall be no order as to costs.