Central Administrative Tribunal - JaipurJamuna Prasad vs D/O Atomic Energy on 24 December, 20211\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n         CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL\n              JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR\n\n\n          ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 18/2012,\n          ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 304/2013\n                          &\n          ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 645/2014\n\n\nOrder reserved on 01.12.2021\n\n\n                               DATE OF ORDER: 24.12.2021\n\nCORAM\n\nHON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER\nHON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n\n\nOA No. 18/2012\n\nJamuna Prasad son of late Shri Sukh Ram, age 55\nyears, resident of 52/203, Sector 5, Pratap Nagar,\nSanganer, Jaipur. Presently working as Scientific\nOfficer "E", Atomic Minerals Directorate, Pratap Nagar,\nJaipur.\n\n                                                    ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n                               VERSUS\n\n   1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n      Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n      Government of India, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n      Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400001.\n   2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n      Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n      500016.\n   3. The    Regional   Director,  Atomic   Minerals\n      Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n      Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n                                                                    2\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n      Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n      Jaipur-302033.\n   4. Shri S.K. Sharma, Scientific Officer (F) Geology,\n      Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and\n      Research, Department of Atomic Energy, West\n      Block-VII, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066.\n   5. Shri Ramesh Chandra, Scientific Officer (F)\n      (Civil), Rajasthan Atomic Power Project-Unit 5 &\n      6, P.O. Anushakti, Via Kota (Raj.) 323303.\n\n                                                    .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\nOA No. 304/2013\n\nJamuna Prasad son of late Shri Sukh Ram, resident of\n52/203, Sector 5, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.\nPresently working as Scientific Officer "E", Atomic\nMinerals Directorate, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.\n\n                                                       ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n                               VERSUS\n\n   1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n      Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n      Government of India, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n      Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400 001.\n\n   2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n      Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n      500016.\n\n\n   3. The    Regional   Director, Atomic  Minerals\n      Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n      Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n      Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n      Jaipur-302033.\n                                                                     3\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n   4. Shri Vinod J. Katti, Regional Director, Office of\n      the Director, Atomic Minerals Exploration and\n      Research, Khash Mahal, Tata Nagar, Jamsedpur,\n      East-Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831002.\n\n                                                    .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\nOA No. 645/2014\n\nJamuna Prasad S/o late Shri Sukh Ram, aged about\n58 years, permanent resident of 52/2, Sector 5,\nPratap agar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Presently working as\nS.O.E. under Directorate of Construction Services &\nEstate Management, Mumbai.\n\n                                                        ....Applicant\n\nShri Mahendra Shah, with Shri Kamlesh Sharma and\nMs. Sarah S. Sharma, counsel for applicant.\n\n                               VERSUS\n\n   1. Union of India through the Chairman, Atomic\n      Energy Commission and Secretary to the\n      Government of India, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, Anu Shakti Bhawan, Chhatrapati Shivaji\n      Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400001.\n\n   2. The Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for\n      Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n      Energy, 1-10-153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-\n      500016.\n\n\n   3. The    Regional   Director, Atomic  Minerals\n      Directorate for Exploration and Research,\n      Western Region, Department of Atomic Energy,\n      Sector-5, Extension Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,\n      Jaipur-302033.\n\n\n   4. Shri Pratap Singh Parihar, Director, Atomic\n      Minerals  Directorate  for  Exploration  and\n      Research, Department of Atomic Energy, 1-10-\n      153-156, Begum Pet, Hyderabad-500016.\n                                                                    4\n\nOA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n     5. Shri G.S. Sharma, Scientific Officer-G, Western\n        Region,    Atomic   Minerals   Directorate  for\n        Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic\n        Energy, Sector 5 Extension, Pratap Nagar,\n        Sanganer, Jaipur-302033.\n\n                                                    .... Respondents\n\nShri Rajendra Vaish, counsel for respondents.\n\n\n                                  ORDERPer: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member\n\n\n Since common question of law and facts is involved\n\nin OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 and OA No.\n\n645/2014 and also as the same are interlinked to each\n\nother, therefore, all aforesaid OAs are taken up\n\ntogether for disposal.2.     OA No. 304/2013 has been filed by the applicant\n\npraying for quashing and setting aside the letters\n\ndated 06.09.2010, 06.09.2010, 16.11.2010 and the\n\norder dated 01.01.2013 with a further prayer to direct\n\nthe respondents to expunge the remarks recorded in\n\nthe ACR for the period 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 and\n\nthat the respondents may be directed to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to the applicant along with interest5OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n@ 18% per annum by upgrading the ACR above the\n\nbenchmark.3.     The brief facts of OA No. 304/2013, as stated by\n\nthe applicant, are that on being repatriated he joined\n\nunder Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and\n\nResearch Western Region, Jaipur on 01.06.2000 and\n\nwas promoted to the Grade of SO/E. He states that a\n\ncommittee was formed including the applicant to\n\nsupervise      the     work     and      monitor    the     quality   of\n\nconstruction         on     day     to     day      basis    including\n\nmaintenance of records, test reports, checking and\n\ncertification of all measurements and bills submitted\n\nby RHB recommending payments to RHB.                        But again\n\nwithin a short span of time i.e. on 18.12.2001,\n\nanother committee was constituted replacing him by\n\nanother person(s) by assigning them all duties and\n\npowers as were vested in him and the respondent-\n\ndepartment did not assign any reason for removing\n\nhim from the said committee and therefore, he has\n\nbeen humiliated by non-assignment of works related\n\nto his qualification and skill and, thus, was forced to\n\nsit idle.     He, thereafter, approached this Tribunal by\n\nway of filing OA No. 494/2002 but vide order dated6OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n15.11.2002, this Tribunal directed the applicant to file\n\na representation. It is the claim of the applicant that\n\nthe representation submitted by him was rejected\n\nmechanically without considering his contentions and\n\nsubmissions raised by him.               Thus, respondents have\n\nacted malafidely against him and, therefore, there was\n\ninordinate       delay     in    communicating        the   adverse\n\nremarks recorded in his ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009, which was communicated\n\nto him vide letter dated 06.09.2010.                  Thus, he was\n\nforced to submit a representation dated 29.09.2010,\n\nwhich was mechanically rejected vide order dated\n\n16.11.2010 by the Reviewing Officer without applying\n\nhis mind.        The applicant states that the Reviewing\n\nOfficer at the most could exercise his power and\n\napprove the remarks recorded by the Reporting\n\nOfficer or expunge the same but he did not have\n\njurisdiction to reject the representation and sustain\n\nthe adverse remarks. Thereafter, he submitted an\n\nappeal     dated      06.05.2011        to    the   Director,   AMD,\n\nHyderabad, raising his grievances but since the matter\n\nwas not adjudicated by the Appellate Authority, he\n\npreferred OA No. 222/2012 before this Tribunal, which\n\nwas disposed of vide order dated 17.04.2012 with a7OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ndirection to decide the appeal dated 06.05.2011.\n\nSince the appeal dated 06.05.2011 was not decided as\n\nper direction of this Tribunal, he was forced to file a\n\nContempt Petition No. 69/2012.                      But after issue of\n\nnotices in the Contempt Petition, the appeal of the\n\napplicant      was      rejected      arbitrarily      with   malafide\n\nintention vide order dated 01.01.2013. Thus, the\n\napplicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of\n\nhis grievances praying for quashing and setting aside\n\nthe letters dated 06.09.2010, 06.09.2010, 16.11.2010\n\nand the order dated 01.01.2013 with a further prayer\n\nto direct the respondents to expunge the remarks\n\nrecorded in the ACR for the period 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009 and that the respondents may be directed\n\nto release the benefits of PRIS-G to the applicant\n\nalong with interest @ 18% per annum by upgrading\n\nthe ACR above the benchmark.4.     After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to 4\n\nhave filed their reply stating that the applicant has\n\njoined the Directorate as                 Scientific Officer/D on\n\n01.06.2000 at Jaipur on repatriation from NPCIL in\n\nterms of letter dated 11.10.1999 issued by Rajasthan\n\nAtomic Power Project, Nuclear Power Corporation,8OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nafter being declared as surplus by Nuclear Power\n\nCorporation and after furnishing his willingness to join\n\nthe respondent-directorate.                He was subsequently\n\npromoted to the grade of Scientific Officer/E with\n\neffect from 01.02.2001. He being a Group-A Gazetted\n\nOfficer was completely aware about his job but yet\n\ninstead of taking up assigned job willingly started\n\nmaking allegations against the respondent-Directorate\n\n/ his superiors/incharge ever since he joined the\n\nrespondent-Directorate.             A    speaking   order   dated\n\n31.12.2002 (Annexure R/1) to that effect was issued\n\nto the applicant.         As far as ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 is concerned, the adverse\n\nentries made in the same was communicated to the\n\napplicant vide Memorandum dated 06.09.2010.                   As\n\nthe applicant has not contributed anything to the\n\norganization during this period and his performance\n\ncould not be assessed and, therefore, promotion was\n\nnot granted. The adverse remarks for the period\n\n01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 were, therefore, retained\n\nand communicated to the applicant vide letter dated\n\n16.11.2010 by the Review Officer. The applicant,\n\nthereafter, submitted two appeals on the same date\n\ni.e. 06.05.2011 for the adverse entries recorded in his9OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nACR for the period from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008,\n\nwhich was disposed of vide letter dated 12.08.2011\n\nand another appeal dated 06.05.2011 for the period\n\nfrom 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009.                      The applicant has\n\nalready         challenged           the       adverse       remarks\n\ncommunicated vide letters dated 06.09.2010 for the\n\nperiod from 01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 in OA No.\n\n15/2012 and the ACR for the period from 01.12.2008\n\nto 30.06.2009 was challenged by him in OA No.\n\n222/2012 for quashing the letters dated 06.09.2010.\n\nHe had also sought a direction in these OAs to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to him along with interest @ 18%\n\nper annum, among other issues. The respondents,\n\ntherefore, state that the present reliefs sought by the\n\napplicant is hit by principles of res-judicata and,\n\ntherefore, the O.A. deserves to be dismissed. In OA\n\nNo.    222/2012,         this    Tribunal       vide    order   dated\n\n17.04.2012 had directed the respondents to dispose of\n\nthe appeal dated 06.05.2011 of the applicant. The\n\nrespondents had with proper application of mind\n\ndisposed of the said appeal by speaking order dated\n\n01.01.2013.         The applicant in the said order dated\n\n01.01.2013 was also informed that he may submit a10OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ndetailed     representation           in    terms     of    order    dated\n\n21.09.2012 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 15/2012\n\nwithin the stipulated time granted by this Tribunal.\n\nAccordingly, the applicant submitted a representation\n\ndated 23.01.2013 wherein he has raised the same\n\nissues and his representation was disposed of vide\n\nspeaking order dated 12.02.2013.                     It is further stated\n\nthat CP No. 69/2012 filed by the applicant was\n\ndismissed       vide     order        dated     11.04.2013          as    the\n\napplicant withdrew the same because the respondents\n\nhad complied with the order dated 17.04.2012 passed\n\nin OA No. 222/2012. As far as payment of PRIS is\n\nconcerned, it is stated that PRIS is a variable\n\ncomponent of the pay, which is awarded after the\n\nperformance of individual / group / organization,\n\nmeasured against goals set for a given period of\n\nassessment,          which       is        non-additive      and         non-\n\ncumulative.        In    order        to    grant     the    said    PRIS,\n\n(organizational incentive), the final overall grading of\n\nall the employees in the ACR/APAR of the preceding\n\nreporting year should be 'Good' or above.                      As far as\n\nACR of the applicant for the period from 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009         is     concerned,           the      applicant        was\n\ncommunicated            the   adverse         entries      made     in    his11OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nconfidential report and as he did not attend to all the\n\nassigned work, the competent authority had decided\n\nto retain the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for\n\nthe    period     from     01.12.2008         to    30.06.2009   and\n\nbenefits of PRIS was accordingly not granted to him.\n\nThus, respondents prayed that the present O.A. is\n\nbarred by principle of res judicata as the applicant has\n\nalready prayed the said reliefs of the present O.A. in\n\nthe earlier OAs filed by him and, thus, this Tribunal\n\nshould restrain from passing any orders in the present\n\nO.A. as the same were already decided by this Tribal\n\nin the earlier OAs mentioned above.5.     The applicant has also filed a rejoinder but after\n\ngoing through the material placed in it, it is seen that\n\nthe same are more or less repeated by him and his\n\nonly     grievance        is   that     he     was    denied     work\n\ndeliberately, intentionally and wilfully, which did not\n\ncommensurate to his qualification and experience as\n\nsuch work was offered to him. Unwarranted adverse\n\nremarks were made by the respondents on the basis\n\nof whims and caprices in arbitrary, capricious and\n\nmalafide manner, which resulted in rejection of his\n\nrepresentation/appeal and further denial of benefits12OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\narising under PRIS. Therefore, he prayed for setting\n\naside    these       illegal   orders     and       for   consequential\n\nbenefits.6.     The respondents filed additional affidavit stating\n\nthat the applicant pleaded that he was not assigned\n\nthe work commensurate to the qualification, status\n\nand experience acquired by him.                     The applicant had\n\nexclusively filed an OA No. 494/2002 with the same\n\nprayer and this Tribunal vide order dated 15.11.2002\n\ndirected the applicant to move a representation before\n\nthe respondents. However, no liberty for any further\n\nlitigation appears in the said order passed by this\n\nTribunal in its order dated 15.11.2002. The applicant\n\nhas again filed OA No. 476/2003 and the same was\n\nrejected by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.10.2003\n\naffirming the action of the respondents.                       Further the\n\napplicant himself vide para 4.7 of OA No. 18/2012\n\nadmitted that the order dated 17.10.2003 passed by\n\nthis Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High\n\nCourt in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003 vide\n\norder dated 06.11.2004.                Thus, respondents prayed\n\nthat the applicant cannot be permitted to raise any\n\ngrievance       in    respect     of    assigning         of    the   work13OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\ncommensurate           to    his   qualification      /     status     and\n\nexperience. The respondents further state that in the\n\nabove OAs filed by the applicant before this Tribunal\n\nagainst APAR, he has also filed several OAs on the\n\nsame issue and even against the transfer order in OA\n\nNo. 712/2013, which was dismissed vide order dated\n\n03.01.2014.7.        OA     No.    18/2012        has     been       filed   by   the\n\napplicant praying for quashing and setting aside the\n\norder dated 21.01.2020 whereby his representation\n\ndated 06.11.2009 was decided and the same was\n\nrejected.       The applicant has also prayed that he\n\nshould be given promotion at par with his juniors Shri\n\nS.K.    Sharma         and    Ramesh         Chandra       and     official\n\nrespondents be directed to promote him to the grade\n\nof Scientific Officer 'F' with all consequential benefit.8.        The brief facts of OA No. 18/2012, as stated\n\nby the applicant, are that he was neither sent nor\n\nconsidered for promotion by the screening committee,\n\nwhereas juniors to him were screened and promoted\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' vide order dated\n\n10/14.11.2006 and 15.11.2007, respectively. The14OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\napplicant was neither aware nor copy of the said\n\npromotion orders were endorsed to him.                            Feeling\n\naggrieved       the     applicant      had     submitted      detailed\n\nrepresentation on 06.11.2009 raising his grievance\n\nand claiming promotion from the date his juniors were\n\nso promoted.          Surprisingly the request was declined\n\nvide order dated 21.01.2010 by observing that he is\n\nnot fulfilling the promotional norms. The screening\n\ncommittee did not recommend his name for promotion\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' with effect from\n\n01.07.2009. Being aggrieved by the said action of the\n\nrespondents, the applicant preferred OA No. 233/2010\n\nseeking a direction to the respondents to promote him\n\nto the grade of Scientific Officer 'F' with effect from\n\n01.08.2006 at par with his juniors.                        When this\n\nTribunal heard the said matter, it was observed that\n\nuntil copy of promotion orders are enclosed, no relief\n\ncan be claimed by the applicant for promotion w.e.f.\n\n01.08.2006        and     onwards.        Thus,     the    relief    was\n\nconfined for promotion with effect from 01.07.2009\n\nwith liberty to file fresh O.A. for promotion with effect\n\nfrom 01.08.2006. The said liberty was granted by this\n\nTribunal in MA No. 326/2010 vide                          order     dated\n\n29.11.2010. The applicant further states that he had15OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nearlier filed OA No. 494/2002 seeking a direction to\n\nthe respondents that work should be assigned to him\n\ncommensurate              to   his     qualification,         status    and\n\nexperience and the said OA was disposed of vide order\n\ndated      15.11.2002           with       a      direction     that     the\n\nrepresentation may be submitted by the applicant and\n\nthe same to be disposed of by the competent\n\nauthority by a speaking order.                        Accordingly, the\n\napplicant submitted a comprehensive representation\n\nand     the    same        was       rejected      vide    order       dated\n\n31.12.2002.          However, the applicant challenged the\n\nsaid order by way of filing OA No. 476/2003 but the\n\nsame was also rejected by this Tribunal and even D.B.\n\nCivil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003 was dismissed by\n\nthe Hon'ble High Curt vide order dated 06.01.2004\n\nupholding          the    order      of    this     Tribunal.     As     the\n\nrepresentation            of   the        applicant       was     rejected\n\nmechanically         vide      order      dated      21.01.2010         with\n\nrespect       to    his    representation          dated      06.01.2009,\n\nwherein it has been mentioned that his case was\n\nconsidered by the screening committee but the said\n\ncommittee did not recommend his case as he was not\n\nfulfilling the promotion norms.                   Feeling aggrieved by\n\nthe    denial       of    promotion         and      rejection     of    his16OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrepresentation,          the       applicant        preferred    OA       No.\n\n233/2010        with     a     prayer        that    the    order     dated\n\n21.01.2010 may be set aside and the respondents\n\nmay be directed to promote him to the grade of\n\nScientific Officer 'F' w.e.f. 01.08.2006 and onwards\n\nwith all consequential benefits at par with his juniors.\n\nAs there was an objection raised by this Tribunal, OA\n\nwas amended and the relief sought was confined for\n\npromotion        only        w.e.f.      01.07.2009           instead      of\n\n01.08.2006. It is clear that liberty was granted by this\n\nTribunal to file a fresh OA for promotion. Thus, being\n\naggrieved by the action of the respondents, the\n\napplicant has approached this Tribunal for seeking\n\npromotion at par with his juniors w.e.f. 01.08.2006.9.        After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to\n\n3 have filed their reply stating that an officer in the\n\ngrade     of    Scientific         Officer    'E'    is   eligible   to   be\n\nconsidered for promotion to the higher grade of\n\nScientific     Officer       'F'    provided        the    employee       has\n\ncompleted at least five years of service in the lower\n\ngrade and has been able to earn a specified grading in\n\nthe confidential reports for the preceding four years as\n\non the eligible date for consideration of promotion.17OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nAccordingly, the case of the applicant was placed\n\nbefore the screening committee w.e.f. 01.08.2006\n\nevery year for consideration for promotion to the next\n\nhigher grade. His case could not be recommended for\n\npromotion as he did not have the requisite confidential\n\nreport     grading.           It    is   further    stated      that   the\n\npromotions of Scientific and Technical Personnel of the\n\nrespondent-directorate are governed under 'merit\n\npromotion scheme', which is purely on merit basis and\n\nis different from the norms applicable to other\n\ncategories of staff.               It is further stated that the\n\napplicant is not work oriented and being a Group 'E'\n\nGazetted Officer, he was expected to take up assigned\n\njob willingly instead of making allegations that he is\n\nexcluded       from      specific        activities.     He     has    also\n\nmentioned         in    his        confidential        report    dossiers\n\npertaining to the year 2001-2002 2002-03 and 2003-\n\n04 as 'no work assigned'. As such, it is clear that the\n\napplicant      has      not        contributed      anything      to   the\n\norganization during these years and his performance\n\ncould not be assessed and, therefore promotion was\n\nnot granted.           Thus, it is clear that the respondents\n\nhad considered the representation of the applicant\n\ndated 06.11.2009 and after applying their mind have18OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrejected the same vide order dated 21.01.2010.                      As\n\nthe applicant has not made out any prima facie case,\n\ntherefore, the present Original Application deserves to\n\nbe dismissed.10.       The applicant has filed rejoinder stating that\n\nhe was not assigned job and work according to his\n\nqualification, status and grade and, on the other hand,\n\na Geologist was appointed as in-charge to supervise\n\nand evaluate his performance despite the fact that he\n\nhad     no     specific      knowledge         /    qualification   of\n\nEngineering.        Thus, for want of assigning requisite\n\nwork, it cannot be expected from the applicant to\n\nshow any achievement. Be that as it may, if work is\n\nnot assigned properly by the respondents, on account\n\nof their lapses, lacuna and fault, the applicant cannot\n\nbe made to suffer in respect of his promotion. As far\n\nas issuing of speaking order pursuant to this Tribunal\n\ndirection is concerned, it is clear that in order to\n\nshelter and cover up misdeeds of the officials, the\n\nDirector issued the order malafidely and revengefully\n\nsince he had exposed the arbitrary function by\n\ninitiating legal proceedings in the Court of justice,\n\ntherefore, the order dated 31.12.2002 issued by the19OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nDirector is of no significance. As far as getting accrued\n\nbenefits of promotion at par with his juniors, he\n\nfurther states that the respondents have not disclosed\n\nin the reply as to what grading was given to the\n\napplicant's performance for the preceding four years\n\nof the year of promotion given to his juniors.\n\nTherefore, he states that he has a right to file a\n\nseparate O.A. as per the orders of this Tribunal. He\n\nfurther prays that the present O.A. be allowed as even\n\nthe    appellate authority           had     rejected   the   appeal\n\nmechanically, which is under challenge before this\n\nTribunal in OA No. 15/2012, which is sub-judice and\n\nhe expects to succeed and get the remarks expunged\n\nby seeking appropriate direction.11.        The respondents have filed additional reply to\n\nrejoinder of the applicant and state that the applicant\n\nhad refused to take the letter dated 31.12.2002 to\n\nprepare the project proposal together with the blue\n\nprint the estimated cost. As far as OA No. 15/2012 is\n\nconcerned, the applicant had approached this Tribunal\n\nfor quashing and setting aside the letters dated\n\n06.09.2010,        16.11.2010         and     12.08.2011      of   the\n\nDirectorate and to further direct the respondents to20OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G to him along with interest, among\n\nother issues.        It is stated that this Tribunal vide its\n\norder dated 21.09.2012 had disposed of the said OA\n\nwith certain directions that the applicant may file\n\nappeal against any adverse order if passed and that\n\nthis    Tribunal       had       quashed       the     orders       dated\n\n16.11.2010          and      12.08.2011             issued     by      the\n\nrespondent's directorate.             It is further clarified that\n\nthe    same      was      also    considered         along     with    his\n\nrepresentation / appeal dated 06.05.2011 in the\n\nspeaking      order      dated     01.01.2013         issued    to     the\n\napplicant.        Thus, respondents pray that as the\n\napplicant is not entitled to any relief, the same is\n\nliable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.12.       It is seen that the respondents have further\n\nfiled additional affidavit along with MA No. 28/2020\n\nand have brought on record certain documents.                            It\n\nwas clarified that the applicant had exclusively filed\n\nOA No. 494/2002 with the same prayer and the OA\n\nwas decided vide order dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure\n\nR/4). This Tribunal had directed the applicant to file a\n\nrepresentation and the same to be decided.                            It is21OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nfurther stated that no liberty for any further litigation\n\nwas granted by this Tribunal in its order dated\n\n15.11.2002.           In compliance of the orders of this\n\nTribunal, the applicant had preferred a representation\n\nand the same was decided by the respondents on\n\n31.12.2002.        The applicant had again moved an OA\n\nNo. 476/2003 and the same was rejected by order\n\ndated 17.10.2003 (Annexure R/5) passed by this\n\nTribunal. It is further stated that the applicant in the\n\npresent O.A. himself has clarified at para 4.7 that the\n\nsaid order of this Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble\n\nHigh Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7719/2003\n\nvie order dated 06.11.2004.                Thus, the respondents\n\nstate that the applicant cannot be permitted to raise\n\nany grievance in respect of assigning him work\n\ncommensurate           to     his    qualification,   status   and\n\nexperience. It is further stated that the applicant has\n\nalso filed OA No. 235/2010 against his non-promotion\n\nand his supersession by his juniors and the same\n\nprayer was made in OA No. 233/2010 as has also\n\nbeen made in the present O.A. It is further clarified\n\nthat OA No. 233/2010 was dismissed by this Tribunal\n\nvide its order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure R/6). The\n\nsame was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by22OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nway of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No 13291/2014,\n\nwhich has also been dismissed vide order dated\n\n25.11.2016 (Annexure R/7).                 Thus, the respondents\n\nstate that the applicant is now estopped from raising\n\nthe same issue afresh in the present O.A. as the same\n\nis covered by principles of res-judicata and, therefore,\n\nthe present O.A. deserves to be dismissed.13.       OA No. 645/2014 has been filed by the\n\napplicant praying for quashing and setting aside the\n\nletters dated 06.09.2010, 12.03.2013 and 30.12.2013\n\n(Annexure A/1 to A/3) with a further prayer to direct\n\nthe respondents to expunge the adverse remarks\n\nmade in his confidential report for the period from\n\n01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 and to release the benefits\n\nof PRIS-G to the applicant along with interest @ 18%\n\nper annum.14. The brief facts of OA No. 645/2014, as stated by\n\nthe applicant, are that he has never been assigned the\n\nwork commensurate to skill, experience, status and\n\ntechnical qualification possessed by him. On the\n\ncontrary, he was harassed and humiliated, which is\n\nevident from the fact that the applicant is a civil23OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nengineer and has earned lot of experience since he\n\nhas already completed tenure of about 34 years of\n\nservice under the Government of India. It is his case\n\nthat as the respondents were creating impediment /\n\nobstacle in his future promotion, he had preferred OA\n\nNo. 494/2002 with a prayer seeking direction to\n\nrespondents to assign the work commensurate to his\n\nqualification, status and experience etc. and vide\n\norder dated 15.11.2002, this Tribunal had directed the\n\napplicant to file a representation to be decided by the\n\ncompetent        authority       by    a    speaking       order.     The\n\nrepresentation filed by the applicant was rejected vide\n\norder dated 31.12.2002.               It is his case that adverse\n\nremarks recorded in his ACR for the period from\n\n01.12.2007 to 30.11.2008 was communicated to him\n\nvide letter dated 06.09.2010 i.e. after an inordinate\n\ndelay, which frustrates and defeats the purpose of\n\nmaintaining the APAR/ACR of an officer. In reply to\n\nthe    same,      he submitted          a representation dated\n\n29.09.2010         stating      that       non-communication           of\n\nadverse remarks is not justified. Being aggrieved by\n\nthe    action     of    the    respondents          in    rejecting   his\n\nrepresentation,         he     preferred        an       appeal     dated\n\n06.05.2011 but vide order dated 12.08.2011, the said24OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nappeal      was     rejected       mechanically        retaining   the\n\nremarks for the period 2007-08 recorded in the\n\nAPAR/ACR of the applicant.                Thus, applicant had no\n\nalternative but to approach this Tribunal by way of\n\nfiling OA No. 15/2012 for quashing and setting aside\n\nthe orders dated 16.11.2010 and 12.08.2011.                        This\n\nTribunal vide its order dated 21st September, 2012\n\nhad disposed of the O.A. with certain directions.\n\nAccordingly, the applicant submitted a comprehensive\n\nrepresentation on 23.01.2013 (Annexure A/13) but\n\ninstead of considering the same, the same was\n\nrejected      by    the     respondents         vide    order   dated\n\n12.03.2013 (Annexure A/2) in a mechanical manner.\n\nBeing aggrieved by the same, the applicant has\n\npreferred an appeal dated 04.04.2013 but the same\n\nwas rejected without due application of mind by\n\nretaining the adverse              remarks vide order           dated\n\n30.12.2013 (Annexure A/3).                 Thus, being aggrieved\n\nby the action of the respondents in rejecting his\n\napplication / appeal in a bias and prejudice manner,\n\nhe has approached this Tribunal for quashing and\n\nsetting aside the said orders.25OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201415.       After issue of notices, the respondent nos. 1 to\n\n5 have filed their reply stating that applicant has filed\n\nOA No. 15/2012 before this Tribunal on similar\n\ngrounds and          this    Tribunal      vide     its      order   dated\n\n21.09.2012 have given directions to the respondents\n\nto provide certain documents to the applicant as\n\ndemanded         and     the    applicant      to     file    a   detailed\n\nrepresentation and within a stipulated time, the\n\nrespondents were to reconsider the same and pass a\n\nspeaking order. It was further stated in the said order\n\nof this Tribunal that if any adverse order is passed\n\nagainst the applicant, the applicant may file appeal\n\nagainst such order.            It is clarified that this Tribunal\n\nhas not granted any liberty to the applicant to file\n\nfresh     O.A.      against       the     adverse         orders.     The\n\nrespondents further state that the applicant has failed\n\nto    submit       self-appraisal        for    the       period     from\n\n01.12.2007          to      30.11.2008          despite           repeated\n\nreminders.         The fact of non-submission of self-\n\nappraisal has been recorded in the confidential report\n\nby the Reporting Officer and the applicant was\n\ninformed about the recordings of Reporting Office vide\n\nMemorandum dated 06.09.2010 by extending an\n\nopportunity to the applicant to make representation, if26OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nany.     Accordingly, representation dated 29.09.2010\n\nsubmitted by the applicant was disposed of vide letter\n\ndated 16.11.2010 retaining the remarks. It is further\n\nstated that as far as ACR for the period of 01.12.2008\n\nto 30.06.200 is concerned, the applicant did not\n\nattend to all the assigned work and spent most of his\n\ntime in arguments and writing complaints to higher\n\nauthorities, which was communicated to him vide\n\nMemorandum              dated         06.09.2010          and    his\n\nrepresentation dated 29.09.2010 was disposed of by\n\nthe competent authority by retaining the adverse\n\nremarks.       Aggrieved       by    the    same,   the    applicant\n\nsubmitted a representation dated 06.05.2021 stating\n\nthat since he was not assigned work commensurate to\n\nhis qualification and experience and the assessment\n\nby reporting officer is not proper and requested to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks. After personal hearing\n\nbeing allowed to the applicant on 27.07.2011 a\n\nreasoned reply dated 12.08.2011 was issued to him\n\nstating that as per OM dated 23.09.1985 issued by\n\nDOPT, if the officer reported upon declines to give\n\nself-appraisal, the Reporting Officer is free to record\n\nthe same in the particular ACR and since the applicant\n\nfailed to submit the self-appraisal, the fact has been27OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrecorded in ACR and the remark made in the ACR has\n\nbeen retained as such. It is stated that as demanded\n\nby the applicant, the documents were supplied to him.\n\nIt is further stated that the applicant has also filed OA\n\nNo. 304/2013 alleging that he has been made to sit\n\nidle and for want of work.               Again applicant filed OA\n\nNo. 645/2014 for the same reason.                          It is further\n\nstated that the adverse entries were communicated to\n\nthe    applicant        to   enable      him        to   overcome     his\n\ndeficiencies and to show improvement. The applicant\n\nwas also given opportunity to represent on the\n\nadverse remarks, if he wish to do so. But instead of\n\nimproving his performance, he submitted two appeals\n\non the said date i.e. 06.05.2011. One appeal dated\n\n06.05.2011 which pertains to expunge of adverse\n\nremarks in ACR for the period from 01.12.2007 to\n\n30.11.2008, which has already been disposed of by\n\nthe Directorate vide letter dated 12.08.2011 and other\n\nappeal dated 06.05.2011 pertains to adverse remarks\n\nin the ACR for the period from 01.12.2008 to\n\n30.06.2009. It is further stated that the applicant had\n\nfiled two OAs before this Tribunal challenging the\n\nadverse remarks communicated vide letters dated\n\n06.09.2010        for    the     period     from         01.12.2007   to28OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n30.11.2008 by way of OA No. 15/2012 and for the\n\nperiod from 01.12.2008 to 30.06.2009 by way of filing\n\nOA No. 222/2012 for quashing the letters dated\n\n06.09.2010,          16.11.2010           and       12.08.2011       of\n\nDirectorate and to further direct the respondents to\n\nexpunge the adverse remarks and also to release the\n\nbenefits of PRIS-G along with interest, among other\n\nissues.     Both the OAs have already been decided by\n\nthis Tribunal and, therefore, in view of principles of\n\nres-judicata,       the     present       O.A.      deserves   to    be\n\ndismissed.16.       The applicant has not filed any rejoinder\n\ndenying the contentions raised by the respondents.17.       The respondents have filed additional affidavit\n\nalong with MA No. 179/2020 bringing on record\n\ncertain     orders     related      to    the    present   O.A.     The\n\nrespondents have stated that the applicant vide his\n\nrepresentations dated 29.09.2010 and 06.05.2011 in\n\nrespect of his adverse remarks in APAR (under\n\nreference in OA) had specifically pleaded the issue in\n\nrespect of not assigning the work commensurate to\n\nqualification,      status     and       experience,    and    similar29OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nrepresentations of the applicant have already been\n\ndisposed of by the respondents in compliance of the\n\norders passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2012.\n\nThe representations in respect of adverse APAR have\n\nbeen rejected by a detailed order dated 01.01.2013.\n\nIt is also pointed out by the respondents that the\n\napplicant has filed OA No. 476/2003 and the same\n\nwas rejected by this Tribunal vide order dated\n\n17.10.2003 affirming the action of the respondents.\n\nFurther, the applicant vide para 4.7 of OA No.\n\n18/2012 admitted that the order dated 17.10.2003 of\n\nthis Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court\n\nin D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.             7719/2003 vide order\n\ndated 06.11.2004.             Thus, the applicant cannot be\n\npermitted       to   raise     any    grievance     in   respect   of\n\nassigning the work commensurate to qualification,\n\nstatus and experience again.                It is stated that since\n\nthe representation in respect of the adverse APAR of\n\nthe applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated\n\n01.01.2013, the present O.A. also suffers from the\n\nprinciples of res-judicata as the same have already\n\nbeen prayed by the applicant in his earlier litigation(s)\n\nfiled by him before this Tribunal.30OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201418.       Heard learned counsels for the parties and\n\nexamined the material available on record along with\n\nthe relevant judgments connected with the subject in\n\nissue.19.       The applicant as well as the respondents have\n\nreiterated their submissions made earlier.20.       M.A. No. 06/2012 filed by the applicant in OA\n\nNo. 18/2012 praying for condonation of delay in filing\n\nthe    O.A.     is   allowed      in   the     interest       of   justice.\n\nAccordingly, delay in filing the O.A. is condoned.21.       When       the     matter      was        finally   heard     on\n\n01.12.2021, it was clear that major issues raised by\n\nthe applicant in the present three OAs have already\n\nbeen considered and decided by this Tribunal in\n\nseveral litigations / OAs filed by him in earlier rounds\n\nof litigations. The applicant cannot raise the same\n\nissues again and again by filing separate OAs and\n\nwasting the precious time of this Tribunal. It is clear\n\nfrom the perusal of the orders / records that this\n\nTribunal has considered the grievances raised by the\n\napplicant in the previous rounds of litigations and had\n\ndirected the respondents to consider the request of31OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\nthe applicant asking the applicant to prefer the\n\nrepresentation(s) and the same to be decided by the\n\nrespondents. It is also seen that the respondents have\n\ncategorically dealt with his submissions and passed\n\nreasoned       and     speaking       orders        not   only   on   his\n\nrepresentation(s) but also on the appeal filed by him.\n\nIt is seen that the disputes raised by the applicant in\n\nthe present OAs have already been adjudicated by this\n\nTribunal in several OAs filed by him earlier, as noted\n\nin the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, on principles\n\nof constructive res judicata, the applicant is barred\n\nfrom filing the present OAs before this Tribunal for\n\nredressal of his grievances already raised in earlier\n\nOAs.22.       It is settled law that any matter which might\n\nand ought to have been made ground of defence or\n\nattack in a former suit or attack in a former suit, shall\n\nbe deemed to have been a matter directly and\n\nsubstantially in issue in a subsequent suit and such\n\nground      filed    subsequently         would       be    barred    by\n\nconstructive res judicata. As per the judgment of the\n\nHon'ble Apex Court in the case ofCommissioner of\n\nIncome Tax, Bombay vs. T.P Kumaran, reported in32OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/2014\n\n\n\n\n1996 (5) SLR 675, it is clear that the claim made by\n\nthe applicant in the present OAs are barred by\n\nconstructive        res      judicata       under   Section   11,\n\nExplanation IV,CPC.            Order 2, Rule 2,CPCprohibits\n\nthe applicant to seek the remedy separately. Hence,\n\nwhen the claim was made on earlier occasion, he\n\nshould have or might have sought and secured decree\n\nor interest. He did not set and, therefore, it operates\n\nas res judicata. Thus, if the relief could be sought in\n\nthe previous proceeding and is not granted therein\n\nthen, the subsequent proceedings for the same relief\n\nwould be barred by constructive res judicata.                 The\n\nprinciple of res judicata also comes into play when a\n\njudgment and order or a decision on a particular issue\n\nis implicit in it, i.e. it must be deemed to have been\n\nnecessarily decided by the implication, then also the\n\nprinciple of res judicata on that issue is directly\n\napplicable.       When any matter which might to have\n\nbeen made ground of defence or attack in a former\n\nsuit but was not so made, then such a matter in the\n\neyes of law to avoid multiplicity of litigations and it\n\nshould have about finality in it is deemed to have\n\nbeen constructively in issue and, therefore, is taken as\n\ndecided.33OA No. 18/2012, OA No. 304/2013 & OA No. 645/201423. In view of the observations made herein-above, it\n\nis clear that the present Original Applications are hit\n\nby principles of res judicata and the same deserve to\n\nbe dismissed on this ground. We have seen that the\n\napplicant is approaching this Tribunal time and again\n\nand wasting precious time not only of this Hon'ble\n\nTribunal but also of the respondent-department, who\n\ncould have utilized their time in other valuable work\n\nand which is more important than the present\n\nlitigations, which time and again repeatedly have been\n\nfiled by him under one pretext or the other, therefore,\n\na cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) is\n\nimposed upon the applicant to be paid to the C.A.T.\n\nBar Association, Jaipur within a period of four weeks\n\nfrom the date of receipt of a certified copy of this\n\norder.     Accordingly, present Original Applications are\n\ndismissed being hit by principles of res judicata.(HINA P. SHAH)                           (DINESH SHARMA)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER                        ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER\n\n\n\n\n/nlk/