Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was the Post Master General during the relevant period and was eligible to be promoted to the Higher Administrative Grade Group A of the Indian Postal Service and to be posted as the Chief Post Master General. His claim for promotion was considered by DPC on 15-12-1999 and again on 28-2-2001. The appellant was not found eligible for promotion to the Higher Administrative Grade A. He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT”) at Patna alleging that he was not considered for promotion for the reason that there were two entries in his CR i.e one on 22-9-1997 and another on 8-2-1998.
3. It was pointed out that CAT, Patna Bench by order dated 27-5-2002 directed the authority not to take note of “the order of caution dated 22-9-1997” and “the order of adverse remarks dated 9-6-1998” for the period 1-4-1997 to 13-10-1997 while considering the appellant for promotion. In the light of the said order, the appellant contended that these two adverse entries should not have been considered by DPC.
4. The appellant further contended that throughout the period he was given the entry of “good”. The respondent Department alleged that the appellant was not considered for promotion as he was not having the benchmark of “very good”.
5. According to the appellant, the adverse entries, namely, “good” were not communicated. The said aspect ought not to have been considered while considering his promotion. In support of the above claim, he relied on the decision of this Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, (2008) 7 Scale 403.
6. Pursuant to the direction of CAT, Patna Bench on 9-9-2002 review of DPC was held and the appellant was not found suitable for promotion. In March 2003, there was a regular DPC and the appellant was found fit for promotion with the same entries and accordingly promoted to the Higher Administrative Grade Group A and later retired from service.
7. It is not in dispute that CAT, Patna Bench passed an order recommending the authority not to rely on the order of caution dated 22-9-1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 9-6-1998. In view of the said order, one obstacle relating to his promotion goes.
8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark “very good” is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of “good” was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of “good” should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the abovereferred decision (Dev Dutt case (2008) 8 SCC 725, (2008) 7 Scale 403) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries “good” if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the officer who was immediately junior in service to the appellant was given promotion on 28-8-2000. Therefore, the appellant also be deemed to have been given promotion from 28-8-2000.
10. Since the appellant had retired from service, we make it clear that he is not entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not worked in the Higher Administrative Grade Group A, but his retrospective promotion from 28-8-2000 shall be considered for the benefit of refixation of his pension and other retiral benefits as per rules.
11. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.