* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1431/1998
Decided on : 28.11.2014
IN THE MATTER OF
R.K. TANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Abhik Kumar, Mr.Arun Singh,
Mr.Rahul Kumar & Mr.Siddhartha Shankar,
Advocates
Versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sundhir Chandra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajendra Dhawan, Advocate for R-2 CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)
1. The present petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 1998 when he was working on the post of Deputy General Manager in the respondent No.2/MMTC, praying inter alia for quashing the order dated 10.7.1996, directing promotion of twenty officers working on the post of Deputy General Manager, to the posts of General Manager. The second relief sought by the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the respondent No.2/MMTC to promote him to the post of General Manager w.e.f. 10.7.1996, with all the consequential benefits. W.P.(C)1431/1998 Page 1 of 5
2. On the last date of hearing, during the course of arguments being addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2/MMTC had requested that his briefing counsel may be permitted to obtain instructions from the Department. The aforesaid request was made in the light of the factual position that has emerged to the effect that in the year 1997, that the petitioner had made representations to the respondent No.2/MMTC for review of his Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 1993, '94-'95 and '95-'96 on the ground that the same had not been communicated to him in writing, though they were adverse to him inasmuch as he was graded as `average' by the countersigning officer and the reviewing officer.
3. No relief has been sought in this petition for issuing directions to the respondents to review the petitioner's Performance Appraisal Reports for the relevant years and he has only sought directions to the respondents to promote him to the post of General Manager w.e.f.10.7.1996. Having regard to the fact that much water has flown under the bridge, the petitioner having superannuated on the post of General Manager in the year 2012, it was enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner whether his client was ready and willing to submit a fresh representation to the respondent No.2/MMTC for reviewing his Performance Appraisal Reports for the aforesaid three W.P.(C)1431/1998 Page 2 of 5 years. It was in this context that the matter was directed to be taken up today to enable the counsel for the respondent No.2/MMTC to obtain instructions from the Department.
4. Mr.Chandra, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2/MMTC fairly states that if it is the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been furnished his Performance Appraisal Reports for the aforesaid years, then the respondent No.2/MMTC is willing to furnish the same to him. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that by now the said Reports have been obtained by the petitioner through the RTI route.
5. Both the parties are agreeable to the suggestion that has fallen from the court that the petitioner may submit a substantive representation to the respondent No.2/MMTC for seeking review of his Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 1993, '94-'95 and '95-'96 so that the competent authority can take a fresh view in the matter.
6. It is therefore deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition, with liberty granted to the petitioner to submit an application to the Competent Authority for seeking review of his Performance Appraisal Reports for the three relevant years, within two weeks from today. Upon receipt of the said application, the same shall be placed by the respondent No.2/MMTC before the competent authority for him to take a decision within four weeks therefrom, in accordance with W.P.(C)1431/1998 Page 3 of 5 law. The said decision shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner.
7. If the competent authority deems it appropriate to upgrade the Performance Appraisal Reports of the petitioner for the relevant years and arrives at a conclusion that he was fit for appointment to the post of General Manager at the relevant point in time, then having regard to the fact that the petitioner had superannuated in the year 2012, his case would be considered for retrospective promotion to the subject post and if promoted, he would be entitled to claim the monetary benefits of arrears of pay and other retiral benefits along with interest calculated @ 9% p.a., from the year 2000, when he was admittedly promoted to the post of General Manager, as per the rules.
8. The aforesaid order is being passed by taking a cue from the judgments of the Supreme Court Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others reported as (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2009) 16 SCC 146 wherein, having regard to the fact that the appellants therein had retired from service, it was made clear that in case they were granted retrospective promotion, their cases would be considered for the benefit of re-fixation of pension and other monetary benefits as per the rules.
W.P.(C)1431/1998 Page 4 of 5
9. The petition is disposed of. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the competent authority, he shall be entitled to seek his remedies in accordance with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 JUDGE
mk
W.P.(C)1431/1998 Page 5 of 5