Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Applicant in person Mr. I.S. Sidhu, No. 1 & 2
Judges
  • L.N. Mittal, Member (J)
  • Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • Applicant in person Mr. I.S. Sidhu, No. 1 & 2
Judges
  • L.N. Mittal, Member (J)
  • Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A))

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, who joined CSIR as Section Officer (G) on 15.01.1986, rose through the ranks and on 26.05.2011 joined CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh as Controller of Administration/Deputy Secretary in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500. He became eligible for the 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) w.e.f. 10.05.2011 to PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000 Grade Pay Rs. 8700/- on completion of 10 years in the same grade pay (pre-revised Rs. 15600-39100 GP Rs. 7600/-).

CSIR issued a seniority list on 12.06.2012 and called the applicant for interview for promotion to Sr. Controller of Administration/Sr. Deputy Secretary (PB-4, GP Rs. 8700/-) for vacancy year 2013-14. The DPC/selection panel meeting on 16.01.2013 did not recommend the applicant for promotion. Through RTI (letter dated 06.09.2013) the applicant obtained ACRs/APARs for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2010; the available overall gradings for the relevant preceding years included some “Good” and “Very Good” entries and some years where ACRs were not available. The applicant contended that certain ACR entries with below-benchmark gradings (not communicated to him) were considered in his assessment for MACP and promotion, and he sought various reliefs including quashing DPC/Screening Committee proceedings and directions to CSIR to reconvene committees and grant MACP/promotion from specified dates.

Respondents filed a written statement raising preliminary objections of limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties and defended CSIR’s prospective adoption of DoPT OMs. The Tribunal heard arguments, considered the pleadings and materials on record, and ultimately rejected the O.A.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether CSIR's adoption of DoPT OMs with effect from specified reporting years (i.e., making DoPT OMs applicable prospectively for reporting year 2009-10 instead of 2008-09) was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and/or prior Supreme Court rulings relied upon by the applicant.
  2. Whether ACRs/APARs containing below-benchmark gradings that were not communicated to the applicant before assessment could be considered by CSIR Screening Committee/DPC for purposes of (a) grant of financial upgradation under MACPS and (b) promotion to Senior Deputy Secretary/Sr. Controller of Administration.
  3. Whether the proceedings and outcomes of the Screening Committee (21.04.2014) and DPC meetings (16.01.2013 and 29.07.2014) and the consequent CSIR OMs/notifications should be quashed for failure to provide the applicant opportunity to represent against below-benchmark ACR entries.
  4. Whether, if the applicant was found fit on reassessment (or if below-benchmark entries were ignored), he should be granted MACP/promotion retrospectively from the dates when he claims entitlement and be paid arrears with interest.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

  • The DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (and related DoPT instructions) and the DoPT OM dated 13.04.2010 (regarding communication of ACR entries and consideration of below-benchmark gradings) were binding and should have been applied from the reporting period 2008-09; CSIR's application from 2009-10 (and other differing effective dates) was inconsistent with the principles in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
  • The applicant's ACRs containing below-benchmark gradings were not communicated to him in time, depriving him of the opportunity to make representations as required by law (including the rulings relied upon), and therefore those below-benchmark ACRs should be ignored for purposes of MACP and promotion assessment.
  • He sought quashing of the Screening Committee and DPC proceedings and CSIR OMs/notifications that considered him without having communicated below-benchmark entries; asked for reconvening of committees to reassess, and claimed arrears with interest if found fit.
  • The applicant also relied on authority that CSIR is an instrumentality of the State (Pradeep Kumar Biswas) to argue that GoI instructions are binding on CSIR.

Respondents' Arguments

  • Preliminary objections: the O.A. is barred by limitation insofar as it challenges certain circulars/meetings/OMs and there is no application for condonation of delay; there is also a plea of non-joinder of necessary parties given CSIR's autonomous status and powers under its Memorandum and Bye-laws.
  • CSIR, as an autonomous body and registered society, has the authority (through its Governing Body) to decide adoption and effective dates of DoPT OMs as applicable to the organization; circulars/instructions of DoPT apply prospectively to autonomous organizations from the dates they are adopted by the competent authority of that organization.
  • CSIR adopted DoPT OMs to the extent approved by its Competent Authority, making them applicable for the reporting period 2009-10 onwards; therefore CSIR's action in adopting those OMs for that reporting period cannot be challenged.
  • Regarding MACP, the applicable benchmark for financial upgradation from GP Rs. 7600/- to GP Rs. 8700/- was “Very Good”; the Screening Committee graded the applicant “Good” and recorded him ‘unfit’ for MACP w.e.f. 10.05.2011 (and later dates when reconsidered). Concerning promotion, CSIR’s promotion rules for Senior Deputy Secretary/Sr. COA include merit and interview elements; the DPC assessed the applicant as ‘Good’ and therefore he did not meet the prescribed standard for promotion.
  • The applicant had obtained copies of ACRs (01.04.1996 to 31.10.2010) in September 2013 while still in service and could have represented earlier regarding below-benchmark entries; he did not do so in a timely manner.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002) Principles concerning communication of ACR/OPAR entries and that non-communication of adverse entries can invalidate consideration of such entries for promotions/assessments; DoPT OMs were issued in pursuance of the judgment dated 12.05.2008. The applicant relied on Dev Dutt to assert that below-benchmark ACRs not communicated to him should not be taken into account. The Tribunal noted the reliance but proceeded on the basis that CSIR, being autonomous, had the competence to adopt DoPT OMs from the date it chose; thus the applicant’s reliance did not, in the Tribunal’s view, lead to quashing of the impugned actions in the circumstances of this case.
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (Civil Appeal No. 992 of 2002) Held that CSIR is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (as invoked by the applicant to contend CSIR must follow GoI instructions). The applicant invoked this authority to argue CSIR was bound by GOI rules. The Tribunal, however, emphasised CSIR's autonomous character and its Governing Body's power to decide applicability and effective dates of Government instructions; it did not accept that this contention justified overturning CSIR's decision on adoption dates in this matter.
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009) 16 SCC 146 Authority relied upon for the proposition that non-communication of ACRs is violative of constitutional rights and that below-benchmark ACRs ought not to be considered for promotion if not communicated. The applicant relied on this decision alongside Dev Dutt. The Tribunal noted the reliance but concluded that CSIR's prospective adoption of DoPT OMs and the applicant's conduct (including availability of ACRs from 2013 onward and lack of timely representation) meant the applicant's claims lacked merit in the present factual matrix.
H.C. Sharma v. M.C. of Delhi, 1983 (2) SLR 706 Authority cited for principle that a statutory/administrative authority (here, an autonomous body) is not automatically bound by decisions of another government agency and may adopt policies/rules by resolution when desired; supports that an autonomous body may adopt central rules/policies prospectively. The Tribunal expressly held that the H.C. Sharma decision was applicable and used its reasoning to support the conclusion that CSIR, as an autonomous body, could adopt DoPT OMs and determine their effective date. The Tribunal found that CSIR's adoption of the relevant DoPT OMs for the stated reporting year could not be questioned on the facts before it.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal proceeded in a stepwise fashion, grounded in the factual record and the authorities/arguments placed before it:

  1. Autonomy of CSIR: The Tribunal began by recognising that CSIR is an autonomous body (registered as a Society) with a Governing Body that has the power to adopt Government of India rules or instructions to the extent applicable. The Tribunal stated that instructions/circulars issued by a Ministry/Government are not automatically binding mutatis mutandis on an autonomous organization; such organizations must decide on applicability and the effective date. The Tribunal regarded the ratio of H.C. Sharma as applicable and decisive on this point.
  2. Validity of CSIR's adoption/dates: CSIR had formally adopted DoPT OMs (e.g., the OM dated 14.05.2009 and related OMs) to the extent approved by its competent authority, specifying applicability from particular reporting years (for example, 2009-10 onwards). The Tribunal held that CSIR's decision regarding adoption and the date of adoption cannot be lightly interfered with because retroactive application in autonomous bodies could unsettle settled situations.
  3. Applicant's opportunity and conduct: The Tribunal noted the applicant could have sought copies of the ACRs earlier (the applicant in fact obtained copies for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.10.2010 by letter dated 06.09.2013) while still in service. The Tribunal observed that even after receiving the ACRs in September 2013 the applicant did not submit timely representations against below-benchmark entries; he only raised these issues later by representations that were considered and rejected, and ultimately by this O.A.
  4. Benchmarks and assessments: On MACP, the Tribunal noted that the benchmark for financial upgradation from GP Rs. 7600/- to GP Rs. 8700/- was “Very Good.” The Screening Committee evaluated the applicant’s preceding five years and graded him “Good,” therefore recording him unfit for MACP w.e.f. 10.05.2011 (and subsequently for other dates when reconsidered). For promotion, CSIR’s rules for Senior Deputy Secretary/Sr. COA include merit and interview elements; the DPC evaluated the applicant and graded him “Good,” meaning he did not meet CSIR’s prescribed standard for promotion on the considered occasions.
  5. Interaction with Supreme Court authorities: Although the applicant relied on Dev Dutt and related authorities to argue that non-communication of below-benchmark ACRs should prevent consideration of such entries, the Tribunal concluded that on these facts (CSIR's adoption decision, the applicant's access to ACRs in 2013, and lack of earlier representation), those authorities did not warrant the reliefs sought. The Tribunal emphasised that CSIR’s prospective adoption decision could not be impugned in the circumstances and that the applicant failed to demonstrate entitlement to MACP or promotion.
  6. Procedural objections: The respondents had raised limitation and non-joinder objections in their written statement; the Tribunal recorded these allegations in the record. The Tribunal’s final decision was reached on the substantive merits described above rather than primarily on these procedural objections.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's claims for financial upgradation under MACP w.e.f. 10.05.2011 and for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior Controller of Administration are without merit. The Original Application is REJECTED. The Tribunal ordered no costs.

Immediate Consequences for the Parties

  • The applicant's prayers for quashing of Screening Committee and DPC proceedings, setting aside of the CSIR OMs/notifications, reconvening of committees, retrospective grant of MACP/promotion and payment of arrears with interest were denied.
  • The decisions of CSIR (including its determined effective dates for adoption of DoPT OMs, the Screening Committee evaluations, and the DPC gradings) stand as not set aside by this Tribunal.
  • No costs were awarded against either party.

Broader Legal Implications Noted by the Tribunal

The Tribunal emphasised the principle that an autonomous organization such as CSIR has the authority to consider and adopt Government of India instructions and to determine the date from which such instructions apply within the organization; retrospective application by autonomous bodies can have disruptive consequences and is not to be lightly imposed. The Tribunal applied the authority of H.C. Sharma to support this position. The Tribunal did not, in this opinion, purport to lay down any new precedent beyond applying established principles to the facts of the case.

Note: This summary is prepared strictly from the text of the provided Tribunal opinion. No information not present in that opinion has been added.

Show full summary ...

    Anil Kumar v. Union Of India

    Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A):— This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):—

    (i) To issue appropriate directions to the respondents to recall the circular dated 29/31.03.2010 (Annexure A-4) vide which DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) regarding communication of all entries in the APAR for fairness and transparency in public administration was made applicable from the reporting year 2009-10 instead of 2008-09 and circular dated 17.04.2014 (Annexure A-15) vide which DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) regarding communication of all entries in the APAR for fairness and transparency in public administration was made applicable from the reporting year 2009-10 instead of 2008-09 and circular dated 17.04.2014 (Annexure A-15) regarding “communication of below benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration of representation by the competent authority against remarks in the APAR or for upgradation of the final grading has been made applicable from the reporting year 2014-15 instead of the reporting period prior to the period 2008-09 as these are not in conformity with the ruling given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002 and are arbitrary, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

    (ii) To issue direction to the respondents to quash the proceedings of the Screening Committee meeting held on 21.04.2014 for financial upgradation to PB-4 Rs. 37,400 -67000 GP Rs. 8700/- under MACPS and set aside CSIR IOM dated 9.5.2014(Annexure A-19) in respect of the applicant for not granting financial upgradation to him w.e.f. 10.05.2011 as his case was considered without communication of below benchmark entries/overall gradings in ACRs/APARs of the reckonable period to him for assessment of his fitness for financial upgradation under MACPs in blatant contravention of DoPT OMs dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) issued in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 12.5.2008 in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002).

    (iii) To quash the proceedings of DPC meeting held on 16.01.2013 and set aside CSIR OM dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-10) notigying the empanelment of the officer for regular promotion to the post of Sr. COA/Sr. Dy. Secretary in PB-4 Rs. 37,400-67,000 GP Rs. 8700/- for the vacancy year 2013-2014 as the case of the applicant was considered without communication of below benchmark entries/overall gradings in ACRs/APARs of the reckonable period to him for assessment of his merit/fitness for regular promotion by DPC in blatant contravention of DoPT OMs dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010(Annexure A-5) issued in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 12.05.2008 in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002).

    (iv) To quash the proceedings of DPC meeting held on 29.07.2014 and set aside CSIR OM dated 29.07.2014 (Annexure A-30) notifying the empanelment of officer for regular promotion to the post of Sr. COA/Sr. Dy. Secretary in PB-4 Rs. 37,400-67,000 GP Rs. 8700/- for the vacancy year 2013-14 (2nd DPC) as the case of the applicant was considered without communication of below benchmark entries/overall gradings in ACRs/APARs of the reckonable period to him for assessment of his merit/fitness for regular promotion by DPC in blatant contravention of DoPT OMs dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) issued in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 12.05.2008 in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002)

    (v) To issue direction to CSIR to review the case of the applicant by reconvening the meeting of Screening Committee for grant of financial upgradation in PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000 GP Rs. 8700/- under MACPS w.e.f. 10.05.2011 by ignoring the below benchmark entries and overall gradings in the ACRs/APARs of the reckonable period as the same have not been communicated to him in terms of DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) for the last five years till his retirement on superannuation on 30.09.2014.

    (vi) To issue direction to CSIR to reconvene the meeting of DPC held on 16.01.2013 for consideration of eligible officers for regular promotion to the post of Sr. COA/Sr. Dy. Secy in PB-4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67,000 with GP Rs. 8700/- for the vacancy year 2013-14 to reassess the suitability of the applicant without the element of interview and by ignoring the below benchmark entries and overall gradings in the ACRs/APARs of the relevant years as the same have not been communicated to him in terms of DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) for the last five years till his retirement on superannuation on 30.09.2014.

    (vii) To issue direction to CSIR to reconvene the meeting of DPC held on 29.07.2014 for consideration of eligible officers for regular promotion to the post of Sr. COA/Sr. Dy. Secy. In PB-4 i.e. Rs. 37,400-67000 with GP of Rs. 8700/- for the vacancy year 2013-14 (2nd DPC) to reassess the suitability of the applicant without the element of interview and by ignoring the below benchmark entries and overall gradings in the ACRs/APARs of the relevant years as the same have not been communicated to him in terms of DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) for the last 5 years till his retirement on superannuation on 30.09.2014 and, if found fit, promote him from the date his junior has been promoted.

    (viii) To direct the respondents to pay the arrears along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the due date for financial upgradation under MACPs till the date of payment.

    2. It is stated in the O.A. that the applicant joined CSIR as Section Officer (G) on 15.01.1986. Over the years, he earned his promotions and on 26.05.2011 he joined CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh as Controller of Administration/Deputy Secretary in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 (pre-revised). On 10.05.2011, the applicant became eligible for 3rd financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) in PB-4 Rs. 37400-67000 G.P. Rs. 8700/- on completion of 10 years of service in the same pay scale/grade pay i.e. Rs. 15600-39100 Grade Pay Rs. 7600/-. As per para 17 of the MACPS guidelines (Annexure A-3) the financial upgradation would be on non-functional basis subject to fitness in the hierarchy of grade pay within the pay band.

    3. It is further stated that the CSIR vide circular dated 12.06.2012 (Annexure A-7) issued a seniority list of Deputy Secretaries/Controllers of Administration and the name of the applicant stood at serial No. 5. CSIR vide letter dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure A-8) called the applicant for interview for regular promotion to the post of Sr. Controller of Admn./Sr. Deputy Secretary in PB-4 i.e. Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- for the vacancy year 2013-14 as per CSIR Recruitment & Promotion Rules for administrative staff, 1982 (Annexure A-9). The CSIR vide OM dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-10) declared the panel for promotion to the post of Sr. Deputy Secretary/Sr. Controller of Administration for the vacancy year 2013-14 and the applicant was not recommended for promotion. Applicant vide CSIR-CSIO letter dated 06.09.2013(Annexure A-11) received copies of available ACRs/APARs for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2010 under the RTI Act, wherein overall gradings recorded in the ACRs/APARs for the preceding relevant five years for consideration by the Screening Committee/DPC were found to be as under:—

    a. 2002-03 Very Good b. 2003-04 Good c. 2004-05 Not available (01.04.2004 to 21.10.2004) d. 2004-05 Outstanding (22.10.2004 to 31.10.2005) e. 2005-06 Outstanding f. 2006-07 Not available g. 2007-08 Not available h. 2008-09 Good i. 2009-10 Very good

    4. It is also stated that the case of the applicant for regular promotion from the post of Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration, PB-3, Rs. 15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 7600/- to the post of Sr. Deputy Secretary/Sr. Controller of Administration, PB-4, Rs. 37400-67000 with grade pay of Rs. 8700/- was placed before the DPC without giving to the applicant the copies of the ACR containing below benchmark gradings i.e., for the year 2003-04 in terms of OM dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) and 2008-09 & 2009-10 in terms of DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) for making representations against them in utter disregard of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002. On 14.02.2014, the applicant made a representation (Annexure A-14) to the Joint Secretary (Admn.), CSIR (Hqrs), New Delhi contending that DoPT OM dated 14.05.2009 had been made applicable in the CSIR with effect from the year 2009-10 instead of the year 2008-09 and DoPT OM dated 13.04.2010 had not been endorsed by the CSIR although the instructions issued by DoPT in pursuance of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India were binding on CSIR, being an instrumentality of the State. It was also contended therein that the circulars of Govt. Of India which held the field at a particular point of time were to be followed in their entirety and it was therefore requested that since the copies of the ACRs containing below benchmark grading, if any, had not been provided to the applicant within a reasonable period of time and he had not been given an opportunity to make representation against them, the Screening Committee must not take cognizance of the same for the purpose of financial upgradation under the MACPS in the interest of fairness and justice. On 23.04.2014, the applicant again made a detailed representation (Annexure A-16) raising issues regarding communication of ACR/below bench mark grading before convening meeting of the Screening Committee for financial upgradation under MACPS but to no avail. Hence this O.A.

    5. In the grounds for relief, it has, inter-alia, been stated as follows:—

    (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.04.2002 in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (Civil Appeal No. 992 of 2002) held CSIR as the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. As such CSIR has no authority to make any rule over and above GOI's Rules to be made applicable from the dates as per its own convenience which infringes upon GoI Rules/instructions and is violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution at any particular given point of time.

    (ii) Two judgments in the cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (order dated 12.05.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146 are relied on to press that non communication of ACR is violative of the constitutional rights of a govt. employee and such below bench mark ACR ought not to be taken into account while considering the question of promotion of a govt. employee.

    6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised that the O.A. is barred by limitation in so far as the challenge is to the circulars dated 29/31.3.2010 (Annexure A-4), Circular dated 17.04.2014 (Annexure A-15), the proceedings of the Screening Committee meeting held on 21.04.2014 based on which OM dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure A-19) was issued, and proceedings of the DPC meeting held on 16.01.2013 based on which OM dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure A-10) was issued. There is no application for seeking condonation of delay qua the reliefs prayed for in para no. 8 of the O.A. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is an autonomous body under Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, and is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. As per the Memorandum of Association of CSIR, Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws, the Governing Body of CSIR is the supreme authority to make or amend Rules. The Governing Body, CSIR also has the power to adopt any Rules or Instructions issued by the Govt. of India to the extent applicable to its employees. CSIR, thus, being an independent legal entity from the Govt. Of India is, therefore, a necessary party. Thus, the present O.A. suffers from non-joinder of proper and necessary party to the O.A. and thus, liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

    7. It is further stated that CSIR vide circular dated 29/31.03.2010 (Annexure A-4) adopted the DoPT OMs dated 16.02.2009 (Annexure A-1) and 14.05.2009 (Annexure A-2) to the extent approved by the Competent Authority of CSIR i.e. for the reporting period 2009-10 to be initiated after 01.04.2010. Similarly vide circulars dated 17.04.2014 (Annexure A-15) and 13.05.2010 (Annexure A-5) CSIR adopted the DoPT OMs dated 13.04.2010 (Annexure A-5) and 19.05.2009 (Annexure A-3) respectively. It is also mentioned that representation dated (Annexure A-23) stands rejected vide communication dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure A-25). The representation annexed as Annexure A-24 addressed to the Vice President CSIR was forwarded to the Joint Secretary (Admn)/CSIR on 26.07.2014 (Annexure R-1/2). As demanded by the applicant, the photocopies of the available ACRs for the period 01.04.1996 to 31.10.2010 had been provided to the applicant while ACRs that were not available were not supplied. The O-APAR for the period 2011-12 had also been provided to the applicant. The applicant had alleged that the reporting officers had acted vindictively against him to harm his promotional aspects for not toeing their line but no such reporting officer had been made party to the present O.A. and hence no reply could be filed in respect of this averment made in the O.A.

    8. Regarding MACPs that was introduced for the Central Govt. Employees vide O.M. dated 19.05.2009, it is stated that the same was implemented by CSIR on its own vide CSIR letter dated 13.05.2010. The Screening Committee is constituted to consider the cases for grant of MACPS, for which the bench mark for financial upgradation to the grade pay of Rs. 7600/- and above, is ‘Very Good”. The duly constituted Screening Committee met on 21.04.2014 to consider the MACP cases of common cadre officers of CSIR. The Screening Committee considered the ACRs/O-APARs of the preceding 5 years accordingly to the date of eligibility of the officer concerned. Since the Screening Committee graded the applicant as “Good”, therefore, the Screening Committee recorded the applicant as ‘unfit’ for grant of MACP in PB-4 (Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/-) w.e.f. 10.05.2011. The Screening Committee again met on 16.09.2014 and 25.09.2014 to consider grant of MACP to eligible officers. Again the applicant was held ‘unfit’ for grant of MACP in PB-4 (G.P. Rs. 8700/-) on 10.05.2012. A list of eligible officers for grant of MACP due up to 30.09.2015 is under preparation and the name of the applicant shall be considered again for grant of PB-4 (G.P. Rs. 8700/-) w.e.f. 10.05.2013.

    9. On the aspect of promotion, it is stated that DOPT vide OM dated 08.02.2002 reviewed the earlier instructions followed by the DPCs which permitted supersession in “Selection” promotion (selection by merit) and decided that there should be no supersession in matter of selection (Merit) promotion at any level and accordingly revised this promotion guidelines. This OM dated 08.02.2002 of DoPT was considered by the CSIR Governing Body in its 153rd meeting held on 01.05.2002. The Governing Body after consideration approved that promotions to and within Group-A of common cadre shall be continued to be made as per DoPT guidelines on DPCs as were enforced prior to notification of the revised guidelines dated 08.02.2002. In other words, the guidelines followed in such cases hitherto shall continue to be followed. The proceedings of the Governing Body are approved by the President CSIR i.e. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. The decision of the 153rd Governing Body meeting was notified vide CSIR OM dated 11.06.2002. Part-II, Section 11(1) of CSIR ASRP Rules, 1982 on promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior Controller of Administration provides as under:—

    ‘Recruitment to this grade shall be made by promotion on the basis of merit on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee which shall interview the eligible candidates from amongst the Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 12,000-375-16500 (revised to Pay Band-3 Rs. 15600-39100 Grade Pay Rs. 7600) who have rendered not less than 5 years of approved service in that grade. If, in a particular year, sufficient number of eligible persons are not available DG, CSIR may, at his own discretion relax the qualifying service to 4 years.’

    Thus, CSIR promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior COA has an element of interview and is based on merit. CSIR has its own method of promotion which is at variance with DoPT instructions where fitness is the sole criteria for promotion vis-a-vis the bench mark in the ACRs of the concerned period. The post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior COA is to be filled on the basis of merit as mentioned above. Accordingly, the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Sr. DS/Sr. COA was considered by the DPC in meeting held on 16.01.2013 for the vacancy year 2013-14. The DPC evaluated the overall performance of the applicant and graded him ‘Good’. The applicant again did not meet the prescribed bench mark for promotion. The applicant was again considered for promotion to the said post by the DPC in its meeting held on 29.07.2014 for the vacancy year 2013-14 (Second DPC) and the DPC graded him ‘Good’. The applicant again did not meet the prescribed bench mark for promotion.

    10. Replication filed on behalf of the applicant reiterated the contents of the O.A.

    11. Arguments advanced by the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents were heard.

    12. Applicant narrated background of the matter at length and mainly pressed that since the ACRs with below bench-mark grading had not been conveyed to him timely and he was not able to submit his representation in this regard, these ACRs should be ignored while considering his claim for MACP from the due date of 10.05.2011 and promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior COA in PB-4 Rs. 37,000-67,000 G.P. Rs. 8700/- from the date when his juniors were promoted. He also stated that at this stage when he had already retired from service it would not be meaningful to give him an opportunity to represent against the below bench mark grading in the ACR that were considered while assessing him for MACPS and for promotion as the ACRs could have been conveyed within a reasonable time and now almost a decade had elapsed since the last ACR that was relevant to be considered for upgradation under MACP was recorded.

    13. Learned counsel for the respondents pressed the preliminary objection that had been taken while filing written statement to the O.A. on the aspect of limitation and non-joinder of necessary party. Learned counsel also referred to para 8 of the O.A. and stated that multiple reliefs had been sought therein and hence the O.A. was not compliant with Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. He further stated that since CSIR was an autonomous organization, circulars issued by the DoPT would only be applicable to the organization with prospective effect and from the date they were decided to be adopted. In this regard, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of H.C. Sharma v. M.C. of Delhi, 1983(2) SLR 706 wherein it had been held as follows:—

    ‘Constitution of India, Articles 16 and 309 Adoption of rules-Decision by Municipal Corporation of Delhi to rules applicable to CPWD Department-CPWD banning direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers-Statutory authority not automatically bound by any decision that may be taken by the CPWD in regard to direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers-Open to the Corporation to adopt any policy of the CPWD by a resolution when alone that policy will become binding on the Corporation.’

    Learned counsel also stated that applicant had obtained copies of ACRs from 01.04.1996 to 31.10.2010 through letter dated 06.09.2013 (Annexure A-11) while he was still in service. He could have submitted his representation against below bench mark grading in these ACRs but he failed to do so and he had only raised these issues much later through representations that had already been considered and rejected, and through filing of this O.A. thereafter in May, 2015. Learned counsel further stressed that since the applicant was graded as ‘good’ each time when he was considered for grant of financial upgradation under MACPs while the bench mark grading required for grade pay above Rs. 7600 was ‘very good’ he could not be granted MACP w.e.f. 10.05.2011 or from 10.05.2012. Learned counsel also mentioned that promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior COA was made as per CSIR's own policy that gave more weightage to merit and this also involved the process of interview. Applicant was considered twice for promotion on the basis of his eligibility but he was graded as ‘good’ by the Selection Committee and hence could not be promoted.

    14. We have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and perused the material on record and heard applicant and learned counsel for the respondents at length. Undoubtedly, the CSIR is an autonomous body and the circular/guidelines issued by the Ministry or the Govt. of India from time to time regarding service of Central Govt. employees cannot be considered to be applicable mutatis mutandis to autonomous organization. The Governing Body/Competent Authorities in such organisation has to take a decision regarding applicability of the instructions/circulars issued by Ministry of Govt. of India as well as the date from which these instructions shall be applicable. If these instructions were to be made operational with retrospective effect in such autonomous bodies, this would have unintended consequence of unsettling many settled issues and would certainly disturb the functioning of these organizations. To us, it is apparent that judgment in the case of H.C. Sharma (supra) is applicable in the present matter to the case of CSIR. Since the CSIR adopted the DoPT's OMs regarding conveying of ACR/APARs from a particular dates, the decision in this regard cannot be questioned. Admittedly, the applicant could have sought the copies of the ACRs through RTI at any time after the Act came into force but he sought the same in 2013 and these were conveyed to him in September, 2013(Annexure A-11). Even then, apparently, he did not submit any representation in respect of ACRs where grading was below bench mark level. The applicant having worked in the CSIR on the administrative side for long years would certainly be well aware of the implication of expressions such as “bench mark grading” and the “MACP” as applicable to officers drawing grade pay at his level. Since the applicant has been graded as ‘good’ while bench mark for financial upgradation from GP 7600/- to GP 8700, was “Very Good” and he could not make the grade. Similar is the position regarding claim of the applicant for promotion where again on the basis of the assessment of the applicant as per the guidelines of CSIR, which involved selection on the basis of performance in service as well as interview, the DPC graded him ‘good’ and thus, he was not considered for promotion.

    15. In view of the discussion above, we conclude that the applicant's claim for MACP w.e.f. 10.05.2011 and promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior COA is without merit. O.A. is hence rejected. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Anil Kumar v. Union Of India
    (Mar 1, 2016)