490 of 2010 before the Tribunal challenging the rejection of the representation by the respondent authorities.
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court observed that alleged downgrading of the ACRs of the appellant by the then Reviewing Authority against the grading recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Reporting Officer was without any material available on record.
658 of 2011.
By said order the Tribunal CAT had directed that the claim by the appellant Saroj Kumar for promotion be companysidered ignoring earlier uncommunicated entries of Annual Confidential Reports ACRs .
In the above circumstances, after companymunication of the entries made to the appellant and subsequent rejection of the representation, number, the law laid down in the cases of Dev Dutt v. Union of India supra , Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others supra , and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India3, is of little help to the present appellant for the reason that in the present case number only the ACRs have been companymunicated to the appellant, his representation too has been rejected.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondent authorities filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
It is pleaded by the appellant that to his utter shock, ignoring him, juniors to him were promoted.
In the third round, appellant filed OA No.
Aggrieved by said order of the Tribunal, the respondents filed Writ A No.
The companytroversy in the present case relates to the downgrading ACRs of the appellant without giving him any opportunity, which were later companymunicated and representation made by the appellant was also companysidered and rejected.
640 of 2006 before CAT, Allahabad Bench, challenging the proceedings of the DPC, and granting promotion to the junior officers.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.9.2008, disposed of the OA remitting the matter back to the respondent authorities for companymunication of annual companyfidential reports and to companysider the case of the appellant afresh, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others1.
8357 of 2011 before Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 21.2.2011.
However, vide order dated 22.1.2010, the respondent authorities rejected the representation against downgrading of remarks by Reviewing Authority and upheld the ACRs for the period 1999 2000, 21.6.2000 to 31.3.2001 and 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002, which, according to the appellant, should have been treated uncommunicated.
Succinctly stated, the facts are that the appellant Saroj Kumar was selected through Civil Service Examination, 1985, and was allotted Indian Defence Accounts Service for short IDAS .
658 of 2011 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 23.3.2011, passed by the authorities.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
In response to said order, the appellant was companymunicated the annual companyfidential reports and he submitted representation on 29.7.2009 to the respondent authorities pleading that in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others2 it has been held that if a grading falling below the benchmark, has number been companymunicated to the companycerned employee, it has to be ignored while companysidering the promotion of such employee.
He was promoted in the pay scale of Rs.14200 18200 vide order dated 10.11.2000 and was given Selection Grade with effect from 5.5.2000.
Later, on 14.6.2004 he was posted as Joint Controller of Defence Accounts, Jabalpur M.P. A DPC was companyvened for promotion in the Senior Administrative Grade on 10.5.2006.
Said OA was also allowed by the Tribunal on 16.1.2012, and the order dated 23.3.2011 was set aside with further direction to the respondent to reconstitute the Review DPC and reconsider the case of the appellant.
Having aggrieved with the denial of promotion, the appellant, in the first round of litigation, filed OA No.
The respondents, vide order dated 23.3.2011, after companysidering the matter afresh, again found numbersubstance in the representation and rejected the same.
On 29.1.1996 he was promoted as Junior Administrative Officer with effect from 12.1.1996.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 27.2.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A No.
50733 of 2012 whereby the High Court has allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench for short the Tribunal in Original Application OA No.
The Tribunal was pleased to allow the OA vide order dated 27.4.2010 and set aside the order dated 22.1.2010 and once again remitted the matter back to the respondent authorities for reconsideration of the representation of the appellant.
