Smt. Vidya Shriwas vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3943 Chatt

                                        1

                                                                             NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WPS No. 3989 of 2022
    Smt. Vidya Shriwas W/o Shri Ritesh Shriwas Aged About 40 Years R/o H-454,
     Ramagreen City, Khamtarai, P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance And
     Planning, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh

  2. Deputy Secretary/director Treasuries, Accounts And Pension, Directorate,
     Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  3. Commissioner Treasuries, Accounts And Pension, Directorate, Indrawati
     Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh


                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner            : Ms. Pragya pandey, Advocate
For Respondents           : Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

22.06.2022

Heard on petition.

1. The petitioner is before this Court praying for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider on her promotion.

2. It is submitted, that the petitioner was appointed in the Subordinate Accounts Service under the respondent Department by order dated 30.11.2007. After her joining, petitioner has sincerely and honestly served the department. By order dated 23.11.2020 promotion order has been issued by the respondents, it does not reflect the name of the petitioner. The petitioner obtained documents through RTI and she came to know, that her promotion was withheld because of some adverse remarks against her. It is submitted that the adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner were never communicated to her. Therefore, the petitioner never had the opportunity to represent against the same. Hence, appropriate order be passed.

3. Learned State Counsel representing the respondents opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner has already obtained the copies of the ACR through RTI and therefore she has the opportunity to represent. If any representations is filed than the same will be considered by the respondents.

4. In the case of Devdutt Vs. Union of India and others, in 2008 (8) SCC 725, the Hon'ble Court has given the mandate to all the employers to ensure that the ACRs of every employee is to be communicated, even if there is no adverse remark and this judgment has to be followed in a letter and spirit by all the employers. On the basis of the submissions made by the petitioner it appears that the appraisal reports and the ACRs were not communicated to the petitioner, therefore, she was not in a position to make a representation. The petition has disposed off.

5. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to communicate the petitioner the adverse remarks whatsoever present in her ACR of April 2018 to March 2019, within a time limit of 60 days, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After receiving the communication from the respondents, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities praying for expressing of adverse remarks of any and for promotion in accordance with the entitlement and on filing of such representation the respondent authority shall be obliged to consider on the same and take decision at the earliest.

6. With these observations, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

vaishali