CSIR Recruitment & Promotions Rules for Administrative Staff, 1982 – Claim for financial upgradation and promotion – Appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for financial upgradation and promotion by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) – Appellant contended that the failure to communicate the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in which he had failed to meet the benchmark violated the O.Ms issued by the Department of Personnel and Training – CAT rejected the said contention and upheld the rejection by the CSIR – Order of the CAT was affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Both the CAT and the High Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of the ACRs for the relevant period – In Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., it was held that fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation and a failure to communicate would be arbitrary – In instant case, the failure to communicate the ACRs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation in the matter of financial upgradation – Subsequently, appellant was furnished with opportunity to submit his representation for regular promotion, but it was not considered – CSIR being an autonomous body do have certain administrative privileges, but it cannot claim a privilege not to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court – CSIR was bound to follow the principles laid down in Dev Dutt’s case – Thus, appellant granted an opportunity to submit his representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years where he did not fulfil the benchmark for financial upgradation – Service Law.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) notified the eligibility of the appellant for grant of financial upgradation with effect from 10 May 2011. However, the name of the appellant did not appear in the list of officers for financial upgradation. The ACRs of the appellant were below the benchmark required for certain years namely 2003-2004, 20082009 and 2009-2010. The gradings were communicated to the appellant on 9 July 2014 to which he submitted a representation for regular promotion, but it was not considered. The appellant was neither granted a financial upgradation nor was he promoted as a part of the exercise of regular promotion to the higher post. Central Administrative Tribunal did not find any substance in the appellant’s grievance. Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was also rejected. Hence, the present Appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. a two Judge Bench of this Court held that fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a representation for upgradation. The view of the Court was that non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. This Court held that these directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to government servants. [Para 13] [526-B-D]
2. A three Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. affirmed the correctness of the view taken in Dev Dutt noting that an earlier three Judge Bench in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. had adopted the same principle. [Para 14] [526-D-E]
3. In view of the Supreme Court judgments, both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of the ACRs for the relevant period. [Para 16] [527-B]
4. The failure to communicate the ACRs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation in the matter of financial upgradation. Subsequently, the appellant was furnished with an opportunity to submit his representation before his case was taken up for regular promotion, but his representation was not considered. [Para 17] [527-C]
5. The appellant did not have the benefit of submitting his representation when the Screening Committee took up the case for financial upgradation. CSIR by reason of its autonomy may have certain administrative privileges. No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated in Dev Dutt’s case, all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court. CSIR was no exception. [Para 18] [527-D-E]
6. The appellant has since retired from service on 30 September 2014. The grant of MACP benefit is not a matter of right and it is after the Screening Committee finds that the officer meets the benchmark that an upgradation can be granted. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant should be granted an opportunity, to submit his representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years where he did not fulfil the benchmark for financial upgradation. Upon the submission of his representation, the respondents shall consider it and communicate the outcome to the appellant. Based on that decision, the case of the appellant for financial upgradation shall be considered afresh. In the event his ACRs for the relevant period are upgraded, the case for financial upgradation shall be further determined and the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration shall be considered afresh by the Departmental Promotion Committee expeditiously. [Paras 19, 20,
21 and 22] [527-F-H; 528-A-B]
Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC
725 : [2008] 8 SCR 174 ; Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566 : [2013] 5 SCR 1004 : Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.