PANKAJ PRAKASH versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 10-07-2019 · 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
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
PANKAJ PRAKASH
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5340-5341 of 2019)
JULY 10, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Promotion – Annual Performance Appraisal
Report(APAR) – Communication of – Held: Every entry in ACR of a
public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable
period – Legitimate grievance can be made in respect of non-
communication of the entries – On facts, in a writ petition by employee
challenging the non-disclosure of entries in APAR for 2010-2011
and 2011-2012 due to which the employee was unable to submit a
representation at the material time, the High Court erred in holding
that absent an adverse entry or an entry below the benchmark, the
failure to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance –
Thus, the order of the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The law laid down by the two-judge Bench of
this Court in *Dev Dutt’s case that every entry in ACR of a public
servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable
period, has been reaffirmed by three judges in **Sukhdev Singh’s
case. The judgment is declaratory in nature. The Union of India
had also issued Office Memoranda on 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010
seeking compliance by all Ministries and Departments. Moreover,
on 19.10.2012, a specific communication was also addressed to
public sector insurance companies. Even independent of these
communications, the respondent was duty bound to comply with
the law laid down by this Court. They cannot urge that the decision
having been implemented from 2013-14, it has no application for
the earlier years. [Paras 8, 9] [946-C, F-H]
1.2 For the normal channel, the appellant secured 64.45
marks against the cut-off of 68.98 for promotion from Scale III to
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 942
942
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
Scale IV. For one of the years under consideration (2011-12) for
the promotional exercise for 2014-15, the appellant was graded
a “B”, while for the subsequent two years, he was graded an
“A”. Consequently, the fact that the appellant was given a lower
grading for 2011-12 would materially affect whether or not he
should be promoted from Scale III to Scale IV for the year in
question. The non-communication of the entries is, thus, a matter
in respect of which a legitimate grievance can be made by the
appellant. [Paras 12, 13] [947-F-H]
1.3 The promotional exercise of 2014-15 has been
completed. The appellant has since been promoted in 2018. The
ends of justice would be made if a direction is issued to the
respondent to consider the representation, if any, that may be
submitted by the appellant in respect of the grading which was
assigned to him for the relevant years which were taken into
consideration during the promotional exercise for 2014-15.
[Para 14] [948-A-B]
1.4 It is directed that that within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the
respondent would communicate to the appellant the
uncommunicated entries in the APARs for the years which were
taken into account for the promotional exercise of 2014-15, to
which, it would be open to the appellant to submit his objections
and representation to the respondent within the stipulated period.
The representation would be considered and thereafter, based
on the result of the decision, the competent authority would take
a decision on whether any modification in the decision for
promotion from Scale III to Scale IV for 2014-15 in respect of
the appellant is warranted. In order to ensure that this exercise
is carried out fairly, it is directed that the competent authority
would ensure that the representation that is submitted by the
appellant is placed before an authority at a sufficiently senior level
to obviate any bias or injustice. [Para 15] [948-C-F]
*Dev Dutt v Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 :
[2008] 8 SCR 174 ; **Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India
(2013) 9 SCC 566 : [2013] 5 SCR 1004 – relied on.
PANKAJ PRAKASH v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 8 SCR 174
    relied on
Para 4
[2013] 5 SCR 1004
    relied on
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5340-
5341 of 2019
From the Judgment and Orders dated 06.10.2016 and 17.01.2017
of the High Court of Judicature  at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ
Petition No. 7631 (S/B) of 2016 and  in Review Application  No. 

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