Dr.D.R.Hegde vs The Director General
2024 Latest Caselaw 15181 Mad

Madras High Court

Dr.D.R.Hegde vs The Director General on 6 August, 2024

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                  W.P.No.1000 of 2020



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 06.08.2024

                                                     CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               W.P.No.1000 of 2020

                     Dr.D.R.Hegde                        ... Petitioner

                                                         vs.

                     1. The Director General,
                     Central Reserve Police Force,
                     Block No.1, CGO Complex,
                     Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

                     2. The Deputy Inspector General (CR &Vig)
                     Office of the Directorate General,
                     Central Reserve Police Force,
                     Block No.1, CGO Complex,
                     Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

                     3. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel)
                     Office of the Directorate General,
                     Central Reserve Police Force,
                     Block No.1, CGO Complex,
                     Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

                     4. The Deputy Inspector General (Medical),
                     Medical Superintendent,
                     Composite Hospital,
                     Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
                     Avadi, Chennai – 600 065.                  ... Respondents

                     1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                        W.P.No.1000 of 2020




                     PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
                     relating to the impugned order of the third respondent in No.P.VII-6/ 2016-
                     Pers-MOs dated the 24th July 2019 and quash the same and direct the first
                     respondent to hold a review DPC by ignoring the remarks and grading given
                     in the petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the
                     period from 2003-2004 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and confer him DACP
                     benefits by granting Grade Pay of Rs.8,900/- with effect from 29.10.2008
                     and Grade Pay of Rs.10 000/- with effect from 29.10.2012 on par with his
                     juniors and grant him all consequential monetary benefits.

                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.P.Manojkumar

                                  For Respondents : Mr.S.Diwakar
                                              Senior Panel Counsel

                                                            ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the

3rd respondent dated 24.07.2019, thereby rejected the request of the

petitioner for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.10,000/- with effect from 29.10.2012

under Dynamic Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as

'DACP').

2. The petitioner had joined as Medical Officer in the Central Reserve

Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') on 05.03.1991. Thereafter,

he was promoted to the posts of Sr. Medical Officer (SMO), Chief Medical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Officer (Ordinary Grade) (CMO-OG) and Chief Medical Officer (Selection

Grade) (CMO-SG).

3. Now, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired

from service. While he was working at Composite Hospital, CRPF,

Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner was communicated with his Annual

Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as 'APAR') on

28.10.2013 for the period from 2005-06 (01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006) and

2006-07 (01.04.2006 to 12.07.2006 and 03.08.2006 to 31.03.2007), with a

direction to submit a representation against the entries and final grading

given in the said report. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted a

representation on 22.11.2013, seeking for upgradation of the said entry.

4. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2014, the petitioner was

communicated with his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to

as 'ACR') for the periods from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004 to

31.04.2005, as below benchmark for consideration in Departmental

Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'DPC') under DACP

scheme for the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.8,900/- in the pay scale of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rs.37,000/- to 67,000/- and also directed the petitioner to submit a

representation against the entries for final grading. On receipt of the same,

the petitioner had sent a representation dated 05.06.2014, to upgrade his

ACR to qualifying benchmark for consideration by the DPC under DACP

scheme.

5. Though other doctors were granted Grade Pay with effect from

29.10.2008, the petitioner was not granted with the said financial

upgradation. The benchmark should also be followed for the grant of

financial upgradation. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation

on 06.12.2014 to consider his name for grant of financial upgradation.

6. By communication dated 08.12.2014, the petitioner was informed

that his ACR for the period 2002-03 (01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003) was below

benchmark for consideration for upgradation under DACP scheme and also

directed the petitioner to submit his representation. On receipt of the same,

the petitioner submitted another representation on 20.12.2014.

7. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 19.05.2015

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the grading for the period 2002-03 was upgraded to 'Very Good'; no

orders were passed with regard to the grading for the period 2003-04 and

2004-05, as there was no representation from the petitioner to upgrade; the

actual grading for the period 2005-06 i.e. 'Good', was confirmed; and the

grading for the period 2006-07, was upgraded as 'Very Good'.

8. Once again, the petitioner submitted a representation on

14.08.2015 for convening the review DPC. On receipt of the same, the

petitioner was informed by the communication dated 21.10.2015 that his

case was deferred in DPC held on 04.09.2014, due to non completion of

formalities as per DOPT O.M. Dated 13.04.2014, which was challenged by

the petitioner before the High Court of Allahabad in W.P.No.4875 of 2016.

By an order dated 03.02.2016, the High Court of Allahabad directed the

department to conduct supplementary DPC, within a period of three months.

Thereafter, the petitioner was granted Grade Pay of Rs.8,900/- with effect

from 29.10.2013, considering the APAR for the years from 2008-09 to

2013-14, by an order dated 10.08.2016.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that his juniors were granted

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Grade Pay of Rs.8,900/- with effect from 29.10.2008. However, the

petitioner was granted Grade Pay with effect from 29.10.2013, due to non

consideration of his representation with regard to APARs for the period

from 2003 to 2006. Therefore, once again, the petitioner submitted a

representation on 16.12.2017, which was rejected by an order dated

24.07.2019.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, in the

case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, in which it is held as follows:

“In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt v. Union of India ((2008) 8 SCC 725) that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results.

Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – poor, fair, average, good or very

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

good – must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.”

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that

the representation submitted by the petitioner ought to have been considered

for upgrading APARs for the periods 2003-04 and 2004-05, as per his

representation dated 05.06.2014.

11. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the counter and the submissions made

by Mr.S.Diwakar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the

respondents, revealed that by the communication dated 28.10.2013, the

petitioner was duly served with his ACRs for the periods 2003-04 and

2004-05, as being below benchmark for consideration in DPC under DACP

scheme. On receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to submit any

representation and so far no representation has been received by the

respondents as against grading recorded in ACRs for the periods 2003-04

and 2004-05 and therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is not helpful to the case on hand.

12. As per the ACRs, the petitioner was graded 'Good' for the periods

2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. On receipt of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

representation from the petitioner, the grading in the ACR for the year

2002-03, was upgraded to 'Very Good'. In so far as the period from 2003 to

2005, the petitioner failed to submit any representation for upgradation.

The grading 'Good' as per ACR for period 2005-06, was confirmed. In so

far as the grading for the period 2006-07 was concerned, it was upgraded as

'Very Good' from 'Good'.

13. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the

DPC under DACP Scheme for granting Grade Pay, which was convened on

04.09.2014. But the case of the petitioner was deferred by DPC for the

reason that the below benchmark ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2002-

03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 not communicated. Whereas, the said

ACRs were duly communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner

approached the High Court of Allahabad and as directed by the High Court

of Allahabad, the DPC was convened and the petitioner was granted with

Grade pay of Rs.8,900/- with effect from 29.10.2013, considering the

APARs for the years 2008-2014. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly not

granted the Grade Pay of Rs.8,900/- from 29.10.2008. In view of the same,

this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs.

06.08.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No ars

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ars To

1. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Deputy Inspector General (CR &Vig) Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

3. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) Office of the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.

4. The Deputy Inspector General (Medical), Medical Superintendent, Composite Hospital, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Avadi, Chennai – 600 065.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

06.08.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis