Ranvir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

V. Ajay Kumar, J

The applicant, a retired Accounts Officer under the respondents, filed the OA seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him as Accounts Officer with effect from the date his immediate junior was promoted. The applicant also sought for a direction to ignore the ACR of the year 2006-07 while considering his case for promotion as Accounts Officer.

The facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the applicant was originally appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer on 20.08.1997. Later, the applicant was promoted as Accounts Officer, in pursuance of the recommendations of a DPC held on 15.06.2009, as against the vacancy year 2009-10, vide order dated 27.09.2009 (Annexure A-18). However, he filed OA No. 2123/2009 seeking retrospective promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, as against the vacancy year 2008-09 and the said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 10.03.2010 (Annexure A-2) as under:-

"3. Keeping the above submissions in view, we are of the opinion that the present matter would be governed by the judgments relied upon by the applicant. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall convene a review DPC with regard to the vacancy year 2008-2009 to reconsider the case of the applicant in accordance with law after they have communicated to him entries in the relevant ACRs taken into consideration by that DPC which have weighed against him, and decided the representation received from him thereon. In case the applicant is recommended for promotion, the same be considered by the competent authority and appropriate orders passed informing the applicant. This exercise be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs".

In pursuance of the aforesaid order in OA No. 2123/2009, the respondents passed the speaking order dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure A-3) and the relevant paragraphs of the same read as under:-

"9. Whereas, subsequently, the Review Departmental Promotion Committee held on 04.11.2010 to adjudicate the fitness or otherwise of Shri Ranvir Singh, AAO for his retrospective promotion to the grade of Accounts Officer, against the vacancy year 2008-09.

Whereas, the Review DPC has considered the case of Shri Ranvir Singh duly taking into account the up-gradation of the grading of ACR of 2003-04 and final grading of ACR of 2006-07 as per the direction of Hon'ble CAT New Delhi and assessed Shri Ranvir Singh as "Unfit" for promotion to the grade of Accounts Officer as on 28.07.2008 viz. the date of promotion of his conferrers who were adjudicated in the meeting of the regular DPC which considered his case for promotion to the grade of Accounts Officer for the first time against the vacancy year 2008-09".

The applicant's request for upgrading his ACR for the period 2003-04 from "Average" to "Good" was accepted vide order dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure A-4), but with regard to the request for upgradaing of ACR for 2006-07 from "Average" to "Good" was rejected vide Annexure A-5 order dated 25.10.2010. His representation against the said order was also rejected vide Annexure A-6 order dated 20.04.2011. OA No.4409/2011 filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to prefer a representation vide order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure A-8). His representation dated 23.01.2012 (Annexure A-9) seeking retrospective promotion as Accounts Officer was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure A-1). Hence the OA.

Heard the applicant in person and Shri Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

The applicant filed MA No.1607/2012 seeking condonation of delay in filing the OA. In the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the MA is allowed.

A careful observation of the above referred facts clearly indicate that the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer as against the vacancy year 2008-09 only on the basis of the gradings given to him in his ACRs particularly in respect of the ACR for the year 2006-07. The applicant's representation against the grading of "Average" for the year 2006-07 was finally rejected vide Annexure A-1 order dated 21.02.2012.

The respondents in the impugned order categorically stated that the availability of vacancy is a pre-requisite for promotion and that though every year vacancies arose in the grade of Accounts Officer, but they were not adequate in number to promote the applicant since a number of other officers, who were senior to the applicant were to be considered and the applicant was accordingly considered as per his turn for the vacancy year 2008-2009. But due to the "Average" grading in his ACR for the year 2006-07, he was not promoted. However, as he was found fit as against the vacancy year 2009-10, he was promoted as Accounts Officer on 27.08.2009. The applicant failed to show, how the grading of "Average" given to him in his ACR for the year 2006-07 was not in order, with cogent reasons. Consequently, in view of his "Average" grading in his ACR for the year 2006-07, he was also not entitled for promotion as Accounts Officer, as against the vacancy year 2008-09.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No costs.