AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
1) Present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.07.2018, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3136 of 2018, preferred by the respondent.
3) Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, and directed the appellant to grant 3rd ACP benefit of Grade Pay Rs. 4,200/- to the respondent, and on that basis the redetermination of pensionary benefit, payable to him.
4) The 3rd ACP benefit was denied to the respondent on the ground that in his ACRs for the years 2005-06 to 2008-09, “Average” entries were recorded, whereas the benchmark was “Good”. The respondent / writ petitioner claimed that he was never communicated the said adverse entries, and, therefore, they could not be looked into for the purpose of determining – whether, he was entitled to the 3rd ACP benefit. The learned Single Judge has found merit in this submission of the respondent / writ petitioner, and, consequently, has allowed the writ petition.
5) The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the writ proceedings, the appellant had been required to file an additional affidavit specifically on the point - as to when the respondent had become aware of the said adverse entries in the confidential record, by looking into his service-book. The appellant had filed the additional affidavit, along with the extract of the service-book, which showed that the respondent had acknowledged having seen his service-book on 11.12.2009. It is, therefore, argued that the respondent was aware of the adverse entries at least on 11.12.2009.
6) In our view, that does not help the case of the appellant, for the reason, that the adverse entries for the earlier years i.e., for the years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 should have been communicated to the respondent in the following service years so that, firstly, the respondent could represent against the same and seek upgradation of his ACR, and, secondly, could improve his functioning to improve his grading in subsequent ACRs. Admittedly, there is no communication issued by the appellant to the respondent, communicating the adverse ACRs. It was left to him to inspect his service-book, which he happened to inspect on 11.12.2009. Had he not himself inspected the records, he would not have learnt of the said adverse entry even on 11.12.2009. The appellant failed to communicate the adverse entries even though they were obliged to.
7) For the aforesaid reasons, we concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, that the said adverse entries were liable to be ignored, while considering the eligibility of the respondent to receive the 3rd ACP benefit.
8) We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
9) Since we do not find any merit in the appeal, we are not going into the issue of limitation.