ANIL KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 521 · Decided: 21-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
ANIL KUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 888 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
CSIR Recruitment & Promotions Rules for Administrative Staff,
1982 – Claim for financial upgradation and promotion – Appellant
was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for financial upgradation
and promotion by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR) – Appellant contended that the failure to communicate the
Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in which he had failed to meet
the benchmark violated the O.Ms issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training – CAT rejected the said contention and
upheld the rejection by the CSIR – Order of the CAT was affirmed
by the High Court – On appeal, held: Both the CAT and the High
Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an
autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department
of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the
appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of
the ACRs for the relevant period – In Dev Dutt v. Union of India &
Ors., it was held that fairness in public administration and
transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential
Reports (ACRs) of a public servant must be communicated within a
reasonable period in order to enable the employee to make a
representation for upgradation and a failure to communicate would
be arbitrary – In instant case, the failure to communicate the ACRs
deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation
in the matter of financial upgradation – Subsequently, appellant
was furnished with opportunity to submit his representation for
regular promotion, but it was not considered – CSIR being an
autonomous body do have certain administrative privileges, but it
cannot claim a privilege not to comply with the judgment of the
Supreme Court – CSIR was bound to follow the principles laid down
in Dev Dutt’s case – Thus, appellant granted an opportunity to submit
his representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 521
   521
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
where he did not fulfil the benchmark for financial upgradation –
Service Law.
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
notified the eligibility of the appellant for grant of financial
upgradation with effect from 10 May 2011. However, the name of
the appellant did not appear in the list of officers for financial
upgradation. The ACRs of the appellant were below the
benchmark required for certain years namely 2003-2004, 2008-
2009 and 2009-2010. The gradings were communicated to the
appellant on 9 July 2014 to which he submitted a representation
for regular promotion, but it was not considered. The appellant
was neither granted a financial upgradation nor was he promoted
as a part of the exercise of regular promotion to the higher post.
Central Administrative Tribunal did not find any substance in the
appellant’s grievance. Writ petition filed by the appellant before
the High Court was also rejected. Hence, the present Appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. a two
Judge Bench of this Court held that fairness in public
administration and transparency require that all entries in the
Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be
communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the
employee to make a representation for upgradation.  The view of
the Court was that non-communication of entries in the ACRs
has civil consequences since it may affect the chances of the
employee for promotion and other benefits.  A failure to
communicate would be arbitrary.  This Court held that these
directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, public
sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, in
addition to government servants. [Para 13] [526-B-D]
2.  A three Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh
vs. Union of India & Ors.  affirmed the correctness of the view
taken in Dev Dutt noting that an earlier three Judge Bench in
Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. had adopted
the same principle. [Para 14] [526-D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
3. In view of the Supreme Court judgments, both the
Tribunal and the High Court were in error in coming to the
conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having
adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.