Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 3 Others vs Anil Kumar Singh on 31 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:191501-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14794 of 2025
Union of India and 3 others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Anil Kumar Singh
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 13.06.2019 has been quashed and the petitioners have been directed to consider notional promotion of the applicant (respondent herein) in the light of observations recorded in O.A. No. 755 of 2010 as well as in the order impugned for the post of AEN retrospectively granting him notional promotion from the date the promotion was given to other employees as per the select panel dated 10.03.2008 for the purpose of post retiral benefits and higher scale of pay from the date he was actually promoted.
2. The O.A. was filed by the respondent, inter-alia, with the submissions that aggrieved of the action of the petitioners in giving ACR grading of 'Average' and not communicating the same to the respondent affecting his promotion, the Original Application was allowed by order dated 29.10.2018 and the following directions were given: "9. In the circumstances of the case and law laid down in Dev Dutt case (supra), the O.A. is allowed to extent that the impugned order dated 28.01.2010 (Annexure A-17) is quashed and a direction is given to the respondents that they will communicate the entries in ACR of the years relevant for the selection of applicant to the post of AEN to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and he should be permitted to make a representation against the same praying for upgradation within one month and which representation shall be decided by respondents within one month thereafter. If the upgradation is allowed, the applicant should be considered forthwith for promotion as AEN retrospectively and granted notional promotion from date of the promotion given to other employees as per the select panel dated 10.03.2008 for the purposes of post retiral benefits and higher scale of pay from the date he is actually promoted."
3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the authority upgraded the grading of the respondent by the following order : "11. It is essential to quote the order for upgrading of grading:- "It is seen that Reviewing Officer in part-IV of ACR above has agreed with the report of Reporting Officer vide item-2, assessment of reporting officer vide item-3 without any disagreement. However, the grading given by Reporting Officer as "GOOD" has been modified as "Average" without assigning any reason. AS per extant instructions, if reviewing officer revises the grading of Reporting Officer stands. In view of the above, I modify the grading of 'GOOD' after re-review of the case."
4. Whereafter, in terms of the directions issued by the Tribunal, following order dated 13.06.2019 was passed : "????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??????/????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????? - ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ???????? ??????????, ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????????? ???, ????????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??????/????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??, ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ????????????, ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ?? ????????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?????????/?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ????? ????? (Special attributes) ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???, ???? ???? ?? ???????? 2004-05 ??? 2006-07 ?? ??????/????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? 2008 ?? ??? ?????-?? 70 ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???/???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? 20.01.2019 ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????"
5. Aggrieved of the order dated 13.06.2019, denying the consequential benefits, as directed by the Tribunal, the present O.A. was filed.
6. The O.A. was contested and the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that despite specific directions of the Tribunal and up-gradation of ACR, the respondents therein arbitrarily without taking into consideration the directions given in O.A. No. 755 of 2010, on insufficient grounds, have rejected the claim of the respondent herein and directed, as noticed herein before.
7. Counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions that despite up-gradation accorded to the respondent, he did not fall within the requisite parameters for grant of promotion and therefore, the directions issued by the Tribunal are not justified.
8. We have perused the material available on record.
9. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 755 of 2010 clearly reveals that on grant of up-gradation, the petitioners were directed to consider the promotion and grant notional promotion and consequential benefits. Pursuant to the said directions, admittedly up-gradation from 'Average' to 'Good' was accorded to the respondent on 02.04.2019. Whereafter, the order impugned dated 13.06.2019, quoted herein before, was passed.
10. A perusal whereof would reveal that the petitioners, have nowhere dealt with the aspect pertaining to the fact that the respondent despite up-gradation accorded to him did not fall within the parameters for grant of promotion and by referring to the procedure pertaining to the recording of ACRs, have rejected the claim made by the respondent.
11. Apparently, even before the Tribunal, no such plea was raised and the Tribunal by the order impugned has, therefore, quashed the order of rejection and has directed consequential reliefs.
12. The plea now sought to be raised cannot be permitted. The petitioners had the opportunity to examine the issue appropriately and pass appropriate order, which they failed to do and even before the Tribunal, no case was set up.
13. Apparently, once the direction was reiterated by the Tribunal by the order impugned, the petitioners have woken up from the slumber and are now seeking to raise the grounds, which are apparently non-existent.
14. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
October 31, 2025
nd
