Shri G.B. Sharma vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 which had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge dated 28.10.1995 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff G.B. Sharma seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to the benefits for the post of a warrant officer which had accrued to him on the date of his promotion i.e. w.e.f. 16.06.1980 be granted to him had been dismissed.

The case of the Plaintiff is that he was working as a defence personnel in the Air Force in the Government of India; Defendant No. 2 had without any reason, illegally withheld his promotion; he was a junior warrant officer; he had to be promoted w.e.f. 16.06.1980 as a warrant officer; his ACR for the year 1978-79 had to be considered but his ACR for the year 1978 had been sent back for reconsideration and was never before the competent authority at the time when he was considered for promotion; his promotion has been illegally and unjustifiably rejected.

In the written statement, the defence of the Defendants was that the Plaintiff was considered four times for promotion; his ACR for the year 1978 had been sent back for reconsideration but even after reconsideration, the qualifying marks were 300 but the total marks of the ACRs for the years 1978 and 1979 of the Plaintiff worked out only to 281 marks; he would not have granted promotion for the aforenoted reason.

This is a second appeal. It is yet at the stage of admission. Substantial questions of law have been embodied at page 6 of the body of the appeal.

The trial Judge had returned the following finding:

I have perused the entire evidence appearing on record. In my opinion there is nothing on record to suggest that ACT of year 1977 is illegal. Though the Plaintiff had submitted a redress of grievance against Defendant No. 2 but the same was withdrawn by him. The Plaintiff has argued that the redress of grievance was withdrawn at the instance of Group Captain K.K. Kirpal that he will look into the matter. But there is nothing on record to suggest that ROG was withdrawn on the assurance of the of Group Captain K.K. Kirpal and therefore, the contention of Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. Since the Plaintiff had refused to accept the adverse communication. I am of the opinion that the Defendants have not violated any rules and regulations and thus no prejudice has been caused to the Plaintiff on that account.

So far as ACR of the year 1978 is concerned, I am of the opinion that through there was delay in filing the same but the Plaintiff was no deprived of promotion on that account. The entire service records including the ACRs were called in the court for perusal. A bare perusal of the record reveals that no prejudice has been caused to the Plaintiff though the ACR of the year 1978 was submitted late because even if the same would have been considered by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was not in a position to make the minimum grade required for the purpose of promotion. The perusal of the record reveals that if the ACR for the year 1978 is considered for the post of promotion the Plaintiff would have been awarded 100 marks. The Plaintiff had scored 136 marks for the ACR of the year 1979 and the total marks awarded for the length of service are 45. The total of all these comes to 281. The minimum grade required for promotion was 3000 as per the criteria laid down by the Defendants. Since the Plaintiff has scored only 281 marks even if his ACR for the year 1978 would have been considered for promotion, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the Plaintiff even by late submission of the ACR for the year 1978. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The issues are therefore decided in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

This finding had been endorsed in the impugned judgment. It had noted as under:

It is explained that the ACR for the year 1977 was adverse and by counting the marks of 1977+ the year 1978; his marks fell short of mandated 300 marks.

Further, the perusal of the records reveals that if the ACR for the year 1978 is considered for the post of promotion, the Appellant would have been awarded 100 marks. The Appellant would have been awarded 100 marks. The Appellant had scored 136 marks for the ACR of the year 1979 and the total marks awarded for the length of service are 45, The total of all these comes to 281. The minimum grade required for promotion was 300 as per the criteria laid down by the Respondents. Since the Appellant has scored only 281 marks; for the relevant period; even if his improved ACR for the year 1978 would have been considered for promotion.

There is no perversity in this finding. It does not in any manner call for any interference. Even after reconsideration of ACR for the year 1978, the marks of the Defendant worked out to 281; qualifying marks were 300 for promotion; no prejudice has been suffered by the Appellant on any count. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference.

No substantial question of law having arisen; appeal is dismissed in limine.