In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a landmark decision has been made in the promotion dispute resolution case, impacting the communication of APAR entries. This case sets a precedent for future instances where APAR communication is crucial for fair decisions. Stay informed about the latest updates on this case!
Facts
- Petitioner failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The prosecution witness’ evidence did not support the case.
- There was no concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime.
- The lower court’s decision to acquit the accused was upheld by the High Court.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Issue
- The appellant claimed for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the services of the respondents.
- This claim led to a dispute between the parties.
- The issue at hand is the promotion of the appellant from Scale III to Scale IV.
Also Read: Railway Compensation Case: Supreme Court Judgment
Arguments
- The appellant contended that the failure to communicate the entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 is contrary to the law laid down by the Court.
- Referring to the Dev Dutt case and Sukhdev Singh case, it was argued that all entries in the APARs are required to be communicated.
- Union of India issued directions for implementation of the decision in Dev Dutt case in May 2009 and April 2010.
- Subsequent Office Memorandum in October 2012 emphasized immediate compliance by public sector insurance companies.
- The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was criticized for its conclusion that failure to communicate without adverse entries or below benchmark results in no actionable grievance.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petition and review petition, leading to the appeal in the present proceedings.
- The appellant’s grievance was that the entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed, affecting his ability to submit a representation.
- In response, a circular in March 2014 required disclosure of APARs by all public sector insurance companies since the appraisal year 2013-14.
- Learned senior counsel for the respondent emphasized on the disclosure made to the appellant on 9 September 2014.
- The respondent’s counsel argued that even if a communication was made, it would not change the ultimate outcome.
- Non-communication of entries does not impact the final result as per the respondent’s submission.
- The communication of 9 September 2014 shows that the appellant received 40.15 marks out of 45 in his work record appraisal.
- The respondent’s counsel highlighted that lack of communication does not prejudice the appellant in this case.
Also Read: Scheduled Castes Reservations: Sub-Classification Dispute
Analysis
- The law laid down by the two-judge Bench in Dev Dutt has been reaffirmed by a three-judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh.
- The uncommunicated entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 have had a negative impact on the appellant.
- The appellant received ‘C’ grading for 2010-2011, ‘B’ for 2011-2012, and ‘A’ for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in the APARs.
- The appellant secured 64.45 marks against the cut-off of 68.98 for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the normal channel.
- Various Office Memoranda were issued by the Union of India and specific communications were addressed to public sector insurance companies for compliance.
- The appellant’s promotion for 2014-15 depended on the APARs for 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14.
- The judgment of the court is declaratory in nature.
- PRE_RELIED of Sukhdev Singh case outlined
- Reference to previous judgements made
- Application of principles from previous cases
- Non-communication of entries can be a legitimate grievance by the appellant
- The position in law as laid down in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra) supports the appellant’s grievance
Decision
- The appellant is directed to submit any representations regarding the grading assigned to him for the relevant years in the promotional exercise for 2014-15.
- The representation will be considered within three months of submission.
- The competent authority will then decide if any modifications to the promotion decision from Scale III to Scale IV for 2014-15 are necessary based on the representation.
- The appellant can submit objections and representation to an unbiased senior authority.
- The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside.
- The respondent must communicate uncommunicated entries in the APARs for the relevant years within one month to the appellant.
- Within two months of receiving the above communication, further actions will be taken.
Case Title: PANKAJ PRAKASH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Case Number: C.A. No.-005340-005341 / 2019
