Oral Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The matter is called out from the final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 10 March 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (For short, “CAT”) whereby, it is observed that: “11 In the present case there were no adverse remarks as such but the DPC gave a grading of “Good” based on the remarks in the ACR, of relevant years. We, therefore do not see any ground for judicial intervention in the decision taken on the basis of recommendations of a DPC headed by a Member of the UPSC after evaluation of the ACRs of the applicant. Further, a DPC is not supposed to finalise its view solely on the basis of final grading communicated in the ACRs by Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority. The members of the DPC go through the entire record of each year and thereafter make their assessment.” 3. The decision so recorded above was taken, based upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as, the CAT of the year 2004 and earlier, in the following words: “9 As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding non-communication of remarks below the benchmark is concerned, a Full Bench of the C.A.T. while disposing OA No. 555 of 2001 vide order dated 16.4.2004 given in A.K. Dawar (supra) has held as follows- “If there is no downgrading of the concerned person in the Annual Confidential Report, in that event, the grading of “Good” given to the Government employee irrespective of the benchmark for the next promotion being “Very Good” need not be communicated or to be treated as adverse.” 10 A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has in Prakash Chand Sharma (supra) held as follows “........... If the adverse remarks were there in the confidential reports it was the duty of the Departmental Promotion Committee to take note of them and come to a decision on a consideration of them. The Committee could not be expected to make investigation about the confidential reports. It appears to us that in this case there was no discrimination, purposeful or otherwise and the best, the Committee's taking into consideration confidential reports with respect of which the petitioner had been given no chance to make a representation was merely fortuitous.” 4. The Committee could not be expected to make investigation about the confidential reports. It appears to us that in this case there was no discrimination, purposeful or otherwise and the best, the Committee's taking into consideration confidential reports with respect of which the petitioner had been given no chance to make a representation was merely fortuitous.” 4. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties read and referred the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, dealing with the issue with regard to the communication of Annual Confidential Reports gradings “Very Good”, “Good”, “Average” or “Poor”, which required to be communicated to the employees working in the respective government offices/statutory bodies, public sector undertakings and/or other State instrumentalities. 5. In Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725 ), the Apex Court observed that:“ 33. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should have communicated the “good” entry of 199394 to the appellant so that he could have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non-communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent and hence violative of natural justice.” “37 We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.” 6. In Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146 ), the principle of Dev Dutt (Supra) has been reiterated. 7. This Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shri Pundalik Atmaram Sawant & Anr. Only then would good governance be possible.” 6. In Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146 ), the principle of Dev Dutt (Supra) has been reiterated. 7. This Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shri Pundalik Atmaram Sawant & Anr. (WP 7469 of 2011, dated 7 February 2013) followed above judgments/principles and not accepted the case of the Respondents about creating of two classes of persons having promoted to the post of Joint Director i.e. “One class will be the one which meets the benchmark of “Very Good” and other class will be of those who fail to meet the benchmark of “Very Good” and thereby, the order passed by the Tribunal in that case which followed the decision in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (Supra), was maintained. 8. The Apex Court recently in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566 ) based upon the above two Supreme Court Judgments recorded as under: “8. …..We accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – Poor, fair, average, good or very good – must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.” “10. …..However, it will be open to the appellant to make a representation to the authorities concerned for retrospective promotion in view of the legal position stated by us. If such a representation is made by the appellant, the same shall be considered by the authorities concerned appropriately in accordance with law.” 9. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and after hearing and noting the Supreme Court Judgments on the issue, we are convinced that the Petitioner's case required to be reconsidered in view of the above position of law in the field. However, it is desirable that the Respondents concerned Management Employer required to reconsider their point of view, based upon the existing service record of the Petitioner, but subject to the above settled law. The Petitioner, therefore, needs to make the representation for the respective entitlements and/or all benefits related to the same. However, it is desirable that the Respondents concerned Management Employer required to reconsider their point of view, based upon the existing service record of the Petitioner, but subject to the above settled law. The Petitioner, therefore, needs to make the representation for the respective entitlements and/or all benefits related to the same. The concerned Respondents to reconsider the same, as early as possible, and grant benefits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations and findings given by the learned CAT in impugned order dated 10 March 2005, by giving opportunity to the Petitioner, if necessary personal hearing, and also if necessary, by taking necessary steps to make the clear record in so far as the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as referred above. 10. In view of above, the Petitioner to make representation to the concerned Respondents within four weeks from today. The concerned Respondents to consider the same, as early as possible, preferably within 8 weeks thereafter. 11. By keeping all points open, the Petition is disposed of. 12. Rule is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.