Delhi High Court
R.K. Tanwar vs Uoi & Ors on 28 November, 2014
* 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.
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
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
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.
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
