Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 81 (MP)

MEENA MISHRA v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-01-28

ROHIT ARYA

body2021
ORDER : – Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A. S. Sisodiya, learned Panel lawyer for the respondent-State. With the consent of parties, heard finally. Petitioner while serving as Joint Collector w.e.f 13-4-2006 reached the age of superannuation on 30-6-2014. She is aggrieved by the improper consideration of her case for award of selection grade, though, she had completed requisite years of service i.e. 05 years preceding to the date of DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) i.e. 27-6-2013 and 10-7-2013. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, ACR grading of the petitioner for the years 2008-2012 are as under : – 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 d d [k [k [k 3 3 2 2 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benchmark fixed by the DPC was 12 marks. Petitioner fulfilled the criteria. However, she was denied selection grade for the reason that the DPC while considering her case has taken into consideration the ACR of the year 2007 instead of 2011 along with ACRs of the years 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008 on the premise that ACR of 2011 was not available with them. Since grading of the petitioner in the year 2007 was ¼[k½ with 02 marks, hence, petitioner felt short by 01 mark of the benchmark 12. Therefore, she was denied selection grade. 4. Learned counsel being dis-satisfied with the justification of non-award of selection grade, in fact had applied under the Right to Information Act to make available the ACRs of the years 2008 to 2012. By the order of the appellate authority dated 14-5-2015, a direction was issued to supply copies of ACRs of the years 2008 to 2012 to the petitioner. It is submitted that the information supplied to the petitioner also included the ACRs of the year 2011. Learned counsel submits that despite existence of ACR of 2011, in which she was awarded grade ¼d½ with 03 marks, she has been denied grant of selection grade purportedly for the aforesaid reason. 5. Learned counsel submits that if the respondent/department did not forward the ACR of 2011 to the DPC for the reason best known to it, petitioner cannot be made to suffer denial of selection grade on that basis. She has been denied equality before law and equal protection of law violating her fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She has been denied equality before law and equal protection of law violating her fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid denial has cascading effect in the matter of monetary benefits of pay, pension etc., and therefore, the same is illegal. 6. In the obtaining facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that her case deserves to be considered for grant of selection grade by way of review DPC and she is also entitled for consequential financial benefits in the form of difference of revised salary, revised pension and regular pension. 7. Per contra, Shri Sisodiya, learned PL for the respondent-State while combating the submissions of the petitioner contends that DPC since has considered the case of the petitioner on the basis of material available on record and not found her fit for grant of selection grade, no fault can be found with the DPC recommendations. On her own showing the ACR of 2011, surfaced only on 19-5-2017 albeit in compliance of the order of the appellate authority under the RTI Act dated 14-5-2015, no grievance can be made as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Heard. 9. There is no cavil of doubt that petitioner had completed requisite five years of service as on the date of DPC. The criteria for award of selection grade is Seniority-cum-Merits. The cumulative effect of her ACRs for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 conforms the benchmark of 12 marks. Non-consideration of ACR of the year 2011 and consideration of ACR of the year 2007 has rendered the petitioner as not fit for awarding selection grade. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioner has not been dealt with fairly and was denied the legitimate claim of awarding of selection grade by the DPC convened on 27-6-2013 and 10-7-2013. If the department for any reason did not forward the ACR of the year 2011 to the DPC, petitioner cannot be held responsible for denial of the aforesaid claim. 10. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to convene a review DPC for consideration of case of the petitioner for awarding the Selection Grade and consider her ACRs of the year 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. 10. Under such circumstances, it is a fit case for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to convene a review DPC for consideration of case of the petitioner for awarding the Selection Grade and consider her ACRs of the year 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. On such consideration and subject to other conditions relevant on the date due for selection grade, petitioner shall be awarded the Selection Grade i.e. on 27-6-2013 or 10-7-2013, as on the date of DPC, she was due. 11. Petitioner shall also be entitled for the difference of revised pay, difference of pension and regular payment of revised pension, as if she was awarded the selection grade as on 27-6-2013 or 10-7-2013. 12. Let the entire exercise be completed within six weeks from the date of passing of this order. 13. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 14. E-certified copy as per rules.