ORDER : P.NAVEEN RAO, J. Heard learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and learned counsel Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju representing Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The issue being common to both the writ petitions, we dispose of the writ petitions by this common order. 3. The facts leading to institution of O.A.Nos.363 of 2002, before the Tribunal against which W.P.No.15006 of 2005 is filed, are as under: i. The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the year 1963. He was promoted to LSG Cadre on 30.11.1983 and further promoted to BCR Cadre w.e.f., 01.10.1991. From out of the BCR Cadre, the department upgraded 10% of the posts to HSG Grade-I. In the year 2000, the applicant was considered for promotion to HSG Grade- I, but he was ignored on the ground that he suffered punishment of censure by an order dated 29.09.1999 in departmental proceedings. By proceedings dated 04.01.2002 two juniors to him namely Sri Bhojanna (SC) and Sri Rahman (OC) were promoted to HSG Grade-I. Aggrieved thereby applicant filed O.A.No.363 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He would urge that promotion to HSG Grade-I being based on seniority, senior could not have been ignored, while granting promotion to his juniors. According to him he had already undergone punishment of censure and was not under currency of punishment by the time those promotions were affected. ii. According to the respondent, promotion to HSG Grade - I is based on selection-cum-seniority. The applicant’s merit was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and on due assessment of his service record, the DPC has not recommended him for promotion. Therefore, ignoring him for promotion while promoting others is not illegal. Reliance was also placed on the administrative instructions issued from time to time on how to make an assessment of suitability of a candidate by the DPC. iii. The Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 29.12.2004, allowed O.A.No.363 of 2002. Therefore, ignoring him for promotion while promoting others is not illegal. Reliance was also placed on the administrative instructions issued from time to time on how to make an assessment of suitability of a candidate by the DPC. iii. The Hon’ble Tribunal by order dated 29.12.2004, allowed O.A.No.363 of 2002. The Tribunal opined that the effect of punishment of censure was only for one year and therefore, based on the said punishment, he could not have been ignored for consideration for promotion and directed the respondent therein to hold a Review DPC to consider the applicant’s case for promotion to the post of HSG Grade-I from the date of granting promotion to his juniors, if he is found otherwise suitable. Challenging the said decision, the respondent preferred this writ petition. 4. The facts leading to institution of O.A.No.461 of 2002, against which W.P.No.15551 of 2005 is filed, are as under : i. Applicant joined service as Clerk in the Postal Department on 24.01.1963. He earned promotions as Sub-Postmaster, Treasurer, Office Assistant, Assistant Postmaster and Head Postmaster. He was also granted B.C.R. Cadre promotion on 01.10.1991. After carving out 10% of posts in B.C.R. Cadre to HSG Grade-I, applicant was entitled to be granted promotion and his name was included at Sl.No.36 in B.C.R. gradation list dated 30.03.2001. According to the applicant, on 04.01.2002, 91 HSG Grade-II officials were promoted to HSG Grade - I (General Line) including his juniors, ignoring the applicant. ii. According to respondents, promotion to HSG Grade - I is based on selection on seniority. The applicant’s merit was assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and on due assessment of his service record, the DPC has not recommended him for promotion, therefore, ignored the applicant for promotion while promoting others is not illegal. Reliance was also placed on the administrative instructions issued from time to time on how to make an assessment of suitability of a candidate by the DPC. iii. O.A.No.461 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 14.02.2005, directing the respondents to hold a review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of HSG Grade-I, with effect from the date of his junior, Sri M. Suryanarayana who was arrayed as the 4th respondent, was promoted by ignoring the entries in the ACRs, showing grading less than the bench mark which were admittedly not communicated to the applicant. Challenging the same, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed this writ petition. iv. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the applicants were considered by the DPC and having regard to the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and on due assessment, the DPC has not recommended them for promotion. Further, the punishment of censure stares at them on the day of consideration for promotion. 5. According to learned counsel for the respondents, in the ACRs for the relevant period, the applicant in O.A. No. 363 of 2002 was graded as good on two occasions, average on two occasions and satisfactory on one occasion. As per the benchmark prescribed for promotion to HSG Grade-I, the minimum grading required was good and as the applicant secured good only on two occasions, the DPC did not recommend him for promotion. So is the case with applicant in O.A. No. 461 of 2002. He secured two (2) good and three (3) satisfactory gradings for the relevant period and did not meet the over all benchmark of ‘Good’. 6. Shorn of details, the grievance of the applicants is against ignoring them for promotion to HSG Grade- I, while promoting far juniors to them even though they were not under currency of punishment. It is also the case of applicants that whenever grading in ACRs is lower than the benchmark prescribed for consideration for promotion, without affording opportunity against lower grading the same cannot be the basis to reject promotion. 7. Though the reply affidavit in O.A.No.461 of 2002 is not clear about this issue, in the writ petition the respondents assert that as the applicant was given lower grading than the benchmark, the DPC has not recommended him for promotion. The respondents assert that notwithstanding the punishment imposed on the applicants, they were subjected to assessment by the DPC, but DPC has not recommended them for promotion on account of lower grading earned by them for the relevant period of assessment. The consideration by the DPC was based on the procedure laid down by the Department and long in force. Therefore, there was no illegality committed by the respondents in ignoring the applicants for promotion and granting promotion to their juniors. 8. While deciding O.A.No.461 of 2002, the Tribunal considered the decision in O.A.No.100 of 2002, dated 07.12.2004. The consideration by the DPC was based on the procedure laid down by the Department and long in force. Therefore, there was no illegality committed by the respondents in ignoring the applicants for promotion and granting promotion to their juniors. 8. While deciding O.A.No.461 of 2002, the Tribunal considered the decision in O.A.No.100 of 2002, dated 07.12.2004. In the said decision, the Tribunal observed that as the lower gradings in the ACRs were not communicated, ignoring the employee for promotion on that ground was not valid in law. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India preferred W.P.No.9164 of 2005. The Division Bench of this Court, following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union Of India & Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566 , upheld the view taken by the Tribunal. 9. The principle laid down in Dev Dutt Vs Union of India & Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 holds the field as of now. In Anil Kumar Vs. Union Of India & Others, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 276 the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again considered the principle laid down in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh and found fault with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court in not granting the relief when the lower gradings assigned in ACRs were not communicated, but made as the basis to reject the claim for promotion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that failure to communicate lower gradings in ACRs, deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation and that the appellant did not have the benefit of submitting his representation when the Screening Committee took up the case for financial upgradation (paragraphs 14 and 15). 10. That being so, the rejection of claim of the applicants for promotion on the ground that grading assigned in the ACRs was lower than the benchmark prescribed for promotion to HSG Grade- I, without affording opportunity against such lower grading is erroneous. 11. Even though there is a faint reference to the punishment of censure imposed on them, the fact remains that such punishment was imposed much prior to the date of holding of DPC and applicants were not under the currency of punishment when the DPC was held. 11. Even though there is a faint reference to the punishment of censure imposed on them, the fact remains that such punishment was imposed much prior to the date of holding of DPC and applicants were not under the currency of punishment when the DPC was held. It is also not the case of the respondents that applicants were ignored for promotion on the ground that the service record is not good as compared to the service record of other persons under consideration and on a relative assessment, the applicants found to be not fit to be granted promotion vis-à-vis the juniors to the applicants. 12. The burden of song of the respondents is on not meeting the minimum benchmark prescribed due to lower grading in the ACRs for the relevant assessment period. The reason for rejecting the claim of the applicants being contrary to the well settled principle of law, we do not see any error in the view taken by the Tribunal and the directions issued thereon. 13. Coming to the relief, it is seen that by the time, O.A.No.363 of 2002 was instituted, the applicant was aged 60 years and by the time O.A.No.461 of 2002 was instituted, the applicant therein was aged about 50 years. At the time of admission, this Court granted interim suspension. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal were not implemented. The applicant in O.A.No.363 of 2002 may have crossed 78 years and the applicant in O.A.No.461 of 2002 may have crossed 68 years. The issue of consideration for promotion is of the year 2002. In the circumstances, holding a review DPC at this stage may not be practicable. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of these two writ petitions, we intend to give quietus to the litigation and to give directions, balancing the interests of both parties. 14. Since the stand of the respondents is very clear i.e., because of the lower grading in the ACRs for the relevant period than the benchmark prescribed for promotion they were ignored and no other reason, in the peculiar facts of these cases, we are of the opinion that applicants need not be subjected to consideration by a review DPC at this stage and they should be granted promotion to the HSG Grade-I, from the date of promotion granted to their immediate juniors. However, such promotion should be on notional basis and their pay and pension be revised accordingly, and they be paid revised pension prospectively. The applicants are also not entitled to arrears of amount for the earlier period on account of such revision. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Subject to above directions, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.