Full Judgment
W.P.No.11546/2006 Union of India versus Shashank Singh AdaRs.03/02/2014 Shri Sushrut Dharmadhikari with Shri Gautam Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant.
None appears for the respondent, even though, notices have been sent by registered post acknowledgment due.
Challenge in this writ petition is made to an order dated 14th of December, 2005 Annexure-P1 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.606/2004.
By the said order, the claim of the respondent/ employee for grant of promotion has been considered and on the ground that certain C.R.Gradings received for the relevant year between 1998-99 to 2002-03, which was initially graded as 'Very Good' and subsequently, it was graded as 'Good' was not correct and holding that the fixing of the bench mark and downgrading is not undertaken in accordance with law, the application filed by the employee was allowed.
Even though, learned counsel for the petitioner/Union of India argued that the gradings and fixing of bench mark is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirement of law and once the gradings received is 'Good', it cannot be graded as an adveRs.entry and the tribunal should not have interfered into the matter.
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Ors., 2008 (8) SCC725 we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Now the petitioner/Union of India is required to proceed in the matter after following the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Dutt (Supra) and in accordance with certain directions already issued by this Court under similar circumstances in the case of Satpura W.P.No.11546/2006 Union of India versus Shashank Singh AdaRs.Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Ved Prakash Arya reported in 2010 (1) MPJR115 Accordingly, for the present finding no case for interference, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take fresh action in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Prakash Arya (Supra).the petitioner shall not convene a review DPC but they shall fiRs.communicate A.Cr.
to the employee concerned, and on the representation being filed by the employee, decide the same and based on the A.Cr., review D.P.C shall be convened.
With the aforesaid modification to the order passed by the tribunal.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma) Judge Judge nd