AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal under Clause 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24/4/2012 passed in WP No. 4966/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent with certain directions. In brief, the respondent was appointed as Assistant Grade III on 1/6/1976 in the service of the appellants. The next higher post for promotion was Assistant Grade II for which the minimum eligibility was to hold Two ''B'' and Three ''C'' grade in Annual Confidential Report in immediate preceding five years. The respondent was denied promotion to the next higher post on the ground that he did not fulfill the minimum requisite criteria whereas the others were promoted on 23/8/1984. The respondent was granted promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Grade II with effect from 9/10/1987. The Writ Petition No. 4966/2006 was filed by the respondent seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Grade II with retrospective effect from 23/8/1984 along with all consequential benefits. The claim of the respondent was opposed by the appellants on the ground that since his Annual Confidential Reports were not upto the mark, therefore, the promotion was not granted to him on 23/8/1984.
The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 24/4/2012 has held that since the adverse ACRs were not communicated to the petitioner, therefore, the same could not be taken into consideration by the respondents for not promoting the petitioner with effect from 23/8/1984. The learned Single Judge on the said reasoning has allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the appellants to promote the respondent with effect from 23/8/1984 on the post of Assistant Grade II and also to give all consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in issuing a direction to promote the petitioner with effect from 23/8/1984. He submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge is not in conformity with the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .
Learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
Having heard the learned counsel for parties and after considering the record of the case, we find that the respondent was denied promotion with effect from 1984 on the ground that he did not have the requisite ACR Grading. The ACRs which came in the way of his promotion were not communicated to him and no opportunity was given to the respondent to represent against the same. The Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt (supra) has rejected the contention that only adverse entry needs to be communicated and has held that every entry must be communicated to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity to make a representation against it if he is aggrieved. The learned Single Judge instead of directing the respondents to promote the petitioner with effect from 23/8/1984 should have followed the course which has been provided by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has provided for communication of the ACR, giving opportunity to make a representation, decision of the representation and in case of up gradation of the entry, consideration of the case for promotion with retrospective effect by the DPC.
Keeping in view the aforesaid position in law, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct the appellants to communicate the relevant ACR entries to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent may make representation against the entries so communicated within two months thereafter and the said representation, if any, made by the respondent will be decided by the competent authority of the appellants within two months from the date of its receipt. If the respondent''s entry is upgraded, the appellants will consider the case of the respondent for promotion with retrospective effect within a period of three months thereafter and if the respondent is granted promotion with retrospective effect he will be given all consequential benefits.
The respondent had also made a claim in respect of the higher pay scale in the Writ Petition, therefore, it would be open to him to submit a representation in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge which will be considered by the concerned appellants in accordance with law by passing a reasoned speaking order within two months from the date of its receipt.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.