Union Of India vs Chitra Srinivasan Irs & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4199 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8412/2010

                                       Date of Decision: August 29, 2011

       UNION OF INDIA                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through:    Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate

                     versus

       CHITRA SRINIVASAN IRS & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Kunal Verma, Advocate for
                                respondent No. 1

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry

of Finance, Department of Revenue, has challenged the order dated

31.05.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 606/2010 titled as Chitra Srinivasan

IRS vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby the petitioner was directed

to ignore the un-communicated ACRs of the years 2002-2003 (if

considered by the DPC), 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The

petitioners were also directed to hold the review DPC to consider

the respondent No. 1 for promotion by considering the ACRs of the

preceding years as provided in the O.M. No. 22011/7/98-Estt.(D)

dated 6.10.2000 read with O.M. No. 22011/5/66-Estt.(D) dated

20.06.1986 of the DoPT.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that

the order passed by the Tribunal impugned by the petitioner is

contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed in

W.P.(C) No. 6013/2010 titled as Union of India vs. Krishna

Mohan Dixit decided on 8.10.2010 which has been followed by

other benches also.

3. During the pendency of the present petition, this Court, by

order dated 16.12.2010, had directed the petitioner to inform the

respondent No. 1, grading for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and

2004-2005 and had allowed respondent No. 1 to submit a

representation against the ACR gradings.

4. The ACR gradings for the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005

were communicated to the respondent No. 1.

5. Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, states that as a

matter of fact, the said communication of the adverse ACRs as also

due consideration of the respondent's representation thereon have

all occurred much before 16.12.2010. Learned counsel for the

respondent No. 1, on instructions, has also stated that against the

grading in the said ACRs, representations were made by the

respondent No. 1 and on consideration of same, the grading of the

respondent No. 1 was upgraded.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also submits that a

review DPC was held which considered the revised grading of the

respondent No. 1 for the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 with other

ACRs of subsequent years and the respondent No. 1 was

recommended for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax. Learned counsel also contends that the respondent

No. 1 has been appointed as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on

the recommendations of the review DPC and she has already joined

as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

7. Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on W.P.(C)

No.6013/2010 titled Union of India vs. Krishna Mohan Dixit is

not contested by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also.

8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 in O.A.

No. 606/2010 titled as Chitra Srinivasan IRS vs. Union of India,

directing the petitioner not to consider the ACRs of 2003-2004 and

2004-2005 is set aside. Since the ACRs for the said years have

already been communicated and represented against and the

grading of the respondent No. 1 has already been revised and

considered by review DPC and she has also been recommended for

promotion and promoted to the next post, no further directions are

required.

9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

CM APPL. NO. 21566/2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 8412/2010

In view of the order passed in the main writ petition, this

application does not survive and the same is disposed of as such.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

AUGUST 29, 2011 rd