Delhi High Court
Shri G.B. Sharma vs Union Of India & Others on 9 May, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 09.05.2011
+ R.S.A.No. 12/2009
SHRI G.B. SHARMA ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Somiran Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
\
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Dutta & Mr. Manikya
Khanna, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated
16.09.2008 which had endorsed the finding of the trial Judge
dated 28.10.1995 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff G.B.
Sharma seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to
the benefits for the post of a warrant officer which had accrued to
him on the date of his promotion i.e. w.e.f. 16.06.1980 be granted
to him had been dismissed.
2 The case of the plaintiff is that he was working as a defence
personnel in the Air Force in the Government of India; defendant
No. 2 had without any reason, illegally withheld his promotion; he
was a junior warrant officer; he had to be promoted w.e.f.
16.06.1980 as a warrant officer; his ACR for the year 1978-79 had
to be considered but his ACR for the year 1978 had been sent
back for reconsideration and was never before the competent
authority at the time when he was considered for promotion; his
promotion has been illegally and unjustifiably rejected.
3 In the written statement, the defence of the defendants was
that the plaintiff was considered four times for promotion; his ACR
for the year 1978 had been sent back for reconsideration but even
after reconsideration, the qualifying marks were 300 but the total
marks of the ACRs for the years 1978 & 1979 of the plaintiff
worked out only to 281 marks; he would not have granted
promotion for the aforenoted reason.
4 This is a second appeal. It is yet at the stage of admission.
Substantial questions of law have been embodied at page 6 of the
body of the appeal.
5 The trial Judge had returned the following finding:-
"I have perused the entire evidence appearing on record. In my opinion there is
nothing on record to suggest that ACT of year 1977 is illegal. Though the
plaintiff had submitted a redress of grievance against defendant No. 2 but the
same was withdrawn by him. The plaintiff has argued that the redress of
grievance was withdrawn at the instance of Group Captain K.K. Kirpal that he
will look into the matter. But there is nothing on record to suggest that ROG
was withdrawn on the assurance of the of Group Captain K.K. Kirpal and
therefore, the contention of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff cannot be accepted.
Since the plaintiff had refused to accept the adverse communication. I am of
the opinion that the defendants have not violated any rules and regulations and
thus no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff on that account.
So far as ACR of the year 1978 is concerned, I am of the opinion that
through there was delay in filing the same but the plaintiff was no deprived of
promotion on that account. The entire service records including the ACRs were
called in the court for perusal. A bare perusal of the record reveals that no
prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff though the ACR of the year 1978 was
submitted late because even if the same would have been considered by the
defendants, the plaintiff was not in a position to make the minimum grade
required for the purpose of promotion. The perusal of the record reveals that if
the ACR for the year 1978 is considered for the post of promotion the plaintiff
would have been awarded 100 marks. The plaintiff had scored 136 marks for
the ACR of the year 1979 and the total marks awarded for the length of service
are 45. The total of all these comes to 281. The minimum grade required for
promotion was 3000 as per the criteria laid down by the defendants. Since the
plaintiff has scored only 281 marks even if his ACR for the year 1978 would
have been considered for promotion, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has
been caused to the plaintiff even by late submission of the ACR for the year
1978. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to
the relief claimed for. The issues are therefore decided in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiff."
6 This finding had been endorsed in the impugned judgment.
It had noted as under:-
"It is explained that the ACR for the year 1977 was adverse and by
counting the marks of 1977+ the year 1978; his marks fell short of mandated
300 marks.
Further, the perusal of the records reveals that if the ACR for the year
1978 is considered for the post of promotion, the appellant would have been
awarded 100 marks. The appellant would have been awarded 100 marks, The
appellant had scored 136 marks for the ACR of the year 1979 and the total
marks awarded for the length of service are 45, The total of all these comes to
281. The minimum grade required for promotion was 300 as per the criteria
laid down by the respondents. Since the appellant has scored only 281 marks;
for the relevant period; even if his improved ACR for the year 1978 would have
been considered for promotion."
7 There is no perversity in this finding. It does not in any
manner call for any interference. Even after reconsideration of
ACR for the year 1978, the marks of the defendant worked out to
281; qualifying marks were 300 for promotion; no prejudice has
been suffered by the appellant on any count. The impugned
judgment does not call for any interference.
8 No substantial question of law having arisen; appeal is
dismissed in limine.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 09, 2011
a
