Union of India and others v. John S. Paul

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943** **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 998/2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, ANUSHAKTHI BHAVAN, CSM MARG, MUMBAI-400094. 2 DIRECTOR OF PURCHASE, DIRECTORATE OF PURCHASE AND STORES, VIKRAM SARABHAI BHAVAN, ANUSHAKTHI NAGAR, MUMBAI-400094. 3 PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, VIKRAM SARABHAI BHAVAN, ANUSHAKTHI NAGAR, MUMBAI-400094. BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:** **JOHN S.PAUL, S/O. LATE J.W.PAUL, PURCHASE OFFICER (RETD.), DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, MUMBAI, ANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, 18/221-A, NADAKAVU, SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683105.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI K.R.** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **2** **ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ. ========================= OP(CAT) No. 1 of 2021** _**(Arising out of the order dated 27.11.2019 in O.A.No.180/000998/2018 of CAT, EKM Bench)**_ **========================= Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** The above captioned petition is arisen out of order dated 27.11.2019 in OA NO.998/2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The prayers in the above captioned OP filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: “i. Call for the records leading upto Exhibit P4 and set aside the same. ii. Grant such other reliefs as may be found by the court as just, proper and necessary.” 2. Heard Sri. P.Vijayakumar, learned ASGI appearing for the petitioners (Union of India and others) in the OP/respondents in the OA and Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair,learned advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/sole applicant in the OA before the Tribunal. Prayers in the Ext.P1 OA No.988/2018, filed by the respondent herein before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench are as follows: _(i) To call for the records leading upto the issue of Annexure A10 and Annexure A12 and quash the same._ _(ii) To direct the respondents to grant the applicant PRIS_ **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **3** _(Performance Related Incentive Scheme) for the year 2010-11._ _(iii) To grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case._ _(iv) To grant cost of this O.A._ 3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered impugned Ext.P4 final order dated 27.11.2019 in the above said OA No.988/2018, wherein, the impugned rejection orders at Annexures A10 and A12 have been quashed and it was held that, as the petitioner meets with the requisite gradation of 'Very Good' for the relevant APAR (Annual Performance Appraisal Report) period 2010-2011, he is entitled to get the claimed PRIS (Performance Related Incentive Scheme) benefit for the period in question and the respondents shall grant the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order of the Tribunal. It is this final order at Ext.P4 rendered by the Tribunal in this OA, that is in challenge in the OP filed at the behest of Union of India and other department officers concerned. 4. The petitioner herein had initially joined service of the Department of Atomic Energy as Assistant Purchase Officer on 01.03.1990. It is common ground that he has retired from service on 31.03.2013, when he was overlooking for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Director, and thus he was constrained to file OA No.1227/2011 before the CAT, **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **4** Hyderabad Bench. CAT, Hyderabad Bench has rendered Annexure A3 final order dated 08.02.2013 in the said OA No.1227/2011 filed by the petitioner herein and has held that the action on the part of the respondent officials concerned in giving the gradation concerned for the APAR periods 20052006 to 2009-2010 was illegal and wrong and further that, the action of the Reviewing Officer in down grading the APAR of the petitioner for the APAR period 2010-2011 as only as 'Good' by rating him with 5.4 points, and thus reducing the gradation given by the reporting officer as 'Very Good', for the said period 2010-2011 by giving him 7.6 points, is illegal and wrong in as much as the said down gradation was not communicated to the applicant and the gradation given by the Reviewing Officer for the APAR period 2010-2011 as with 7.6 points should be restored. Accordingly, the Hyderabad Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director on the basis of the above said findings made by the Tribunal. 5. It is not in dispute that the official respondents have not challenged Annexure A3 order, and the conclusions and findings made by the Tribunal at Annexure A3 has become final and compulsive as between the parties concerned. Later, after considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, the official respondents concerned have denied the said promotion and granted the same in favour of a junior to the **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **5** applicant on the ground that the said person had secured better gradation than the applicant and that there was only one vacancy for the year in question. The said denial of promotion was challenged by the petitioner by filing OA No.1193/2013 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. The CAT, Ernakulam has rendered Annexure A-4 final order dated 08.09.2016 in the said OA No.1193/2013 filed by the petitioner herein by holding that respondents have indeed acted upon the findings and orders made by the Tribunal previously at Annexure A3 and that the norms for promotion to the post of Deputy Director is the norms for the selection post and that the case of the petitioner and the rival claimant was considered and it has found that the admitted junior of the petitioner was given over all gradation of 18 points, whereas the petitioner was given only 17 points and that since there was only one vacancy, the respondents have given promotion on the basis of selection to the said post of Deputy Director in favour of the said junior and not to the petitioner. The Tribunal found that, since the criteria for promotion is on the basis of selection norms, and there was only one post, the impugned order of the official respondents in having promoted the rival claimant and not the petitioner cannot be interfered with. Moreover, the Tribunal has also found that the applicant has raised a contention that he should have been awarded three more points and the assessment process and that, the Tribunal held that, even if **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **6** it is assumed that the petitioner is given the three additional points as urged by him, still he can be given only 73 points (70+3), and even if that be so, since the rival claimant has secured 80 points, the impugned action of the respondents in having promoted the said rival claimant on the basis of selection norms cannot be faulted in as much as the said person was given higher gradation and there was only one vacancy in the post of Deputy Director. On the above said premises and findings, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA No.1193/2013 filed by the petitioner herein. 6. Now, the present claim of the petitioner is for the Performance Related Incentive Scheme, PRIS, concerned, which is applicable to the Department of Atomic Energy in the Government of India. The Tribunal has now rendered the impugned Ext.P4 final order in favour of the petitioner, directing that the impugned rejection orders at Annexures A10 and A12 are illegal and unreasonable and the petitioner has to be given the claimed PRIS benefit within two months. The issue posted before us is as to the correctness or otherwise of the above said directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned Ext.P4 final order. 7. The norms for PRIS benefits as far as the Department of Atomic Energy is concerned, is as per Annexure A7 proceedings OM No.1/1/ (40)/2010-SCS/8266 dated 30.08.2010 issued by the Government of India **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** ## **7** in the Department of Atomic Energy. Both sides have produced copies of various other proceedings in relation to PRIS, but it is common ground in both sides that Annexure A7 norms dated 30.08.2010 is the norms that covers the claim of the petitioner in this case. Reading of Annexure A7 OM dated 30.08.2010 would make it clear that the PRIS benefit for grant of group is a group incentive which has to be awarded only to a specific group on an annual basis based on their achieving said target in the high end, and that the groups will be clearly identified and goals/targets for personnel within each group will be set in advance for each year with the approval of the external Expert Committe. Clause ii thereof would also indicate that the group incentive will be admissible to all employees of the Department - scientific, technical, administrative and auxiliary constituting the group. Clause v thereof is more cardinal and important norm as far as the present case is concerned, and the same reads as follows: - _“v. The final overall grading of the employee in the ACR/APAR of the preceding reporting year should be 'Very Good' or above. However, in case of SC/ST employees, the final grading in the ACR/APAR of the preceding reporting year should be 'Good' or above.”_ ## 8. The claim of the petitioner for the PRIS benefit had been denied as per Annexures A10 and A12 which has also stated specific and precise ground for rejection. Refer Annexure A10 rejection order dated 04.01.2018, issued by the respondents, which reads as follows: **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **8** _“Reference is invited to your letter dated 25/10/2017 requesting to consider payment of PRIS for the year 20102011 on the basis of judgment order against O.A.No.1227/2011 and O.A.No.1139/2013._ _In this regard, it is intimated that you are not eligible for payment of PRIS for the year 2010-2011 as you are not meeting the APAR grading criteria for the period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011.”_ ## 9. The same reasons are again reiterated in Annexure A12 order dated 04.06.2018, which reads as follows: _“Reference is invited to your letter dated 23/01/2018 requesting to consider payment of PRIS for the year 20102011 on the basis of judgment order against O.A.No.1227/2011 and O.A.No.1139/2013._ _In this regard, it is once again intimated that you are not eligible for payment of PRIS for the year 2010-2011 as you are not meeting the APAR grading criteria for the period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011. The judgment order of O.A.No.1227/2011 has given decision only about consideration for promotion and hence the same cannot be taken as a basis for claiming PRIS.”_ ## 10. It can be seen from mere reading of impugned Annexures A10 and A12 rejection orders that, the sole ground of rejection as far as the petitioner is concerned is that, he is not eligible for payment of PRIS for the year 2010-2011, as he is not meeting the APAR grading criteria for the period in question (01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011). In other words, the case of the respondents is that, petitioner's gradation in the APAR 2010-2011 for the period from 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011 does not meet the minimum requisite of 'Very Good'. 11. The Tribunal while rendering the verdict in one of the previous **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **9** grounds of litigation, which culminated in Ext.p1 final order dated 08-022013 in O.A.No.1227/2011, has rendered the following findings at paragraph no.12 thereon. _:12 In respect of ACR for the year 2010-11, admittedly the Reporting Officer recorded markes as 7.6. While reviewing the matter, the Reviewing Authority recorded 5.11 marks. But he has not given any reasons for reducing such marks. The applicant has also brought the same to the 3[rd] respondent through his representation stating that there are no justified reasons for reducing marks as recorded by the Reporting Officer. But the 3[rd] respondent did not consider such claim of the applicant and simply rejected the same without any reasons and as such the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the finding of the 3[rd] respondent in respect of such A.C.R is also liable to be set aside. Without giving any discussion for coming to such conclusion, passing of such an order is not at all a reasoned order and as such the claim of the applicant seeking for quashing of the said order is valid and justified.”_ 12. It has been borne in mind that the issue raised at the outset by the Tribunal in Annexures A3 and A4 is in relation to the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. On the basis of the said findings, the Tribunal has found in paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 that for the APAR period 2010-2011, the Reporting Officer has indeed recorded 7.6 marks for the petitioner, whereas, the reviewing authority while reviewing the matter had down graded the said aspect and recorded only 5.11 marks. The Tribunal has categorically found in paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 that the impugned action of the reviewing authority in down grading the assessment made by the Reporting Officer for the year 2010-2011 is fairly illegal and improper, in as much as the same was done **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** without any justifiable reasons and without notice to the petitioner. Hence, the Tribunal has found that the down gradation made at the instance of the reviewing authority as 5.11 marks for the APAR period 2010-2011 has to be ignored and the gradation made for the year 2010-2011 with 7.6 marks should be restored. The Tribunal has also found that the action of the respondents in making the gradations for the APAR periods 2005-2006 till 2009-2010 is also illegal and improper, in as much as the gradation is 'Good' and not as 'Very Good' was made without notice to the petitioner and that, therefore, such gradations for the APAR periods 2005-2006 up to 2009-2010 should be ignored while considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director. 13. The above said findings and orders of the Tribunal has been acted upon by the respondents and Annexure A3 has not been challenged in any manner by the official respondents and the fact that the findings in Annexure A3 has been acted upon is also fully reflected from a reading of the subsequent verdict of the Tribunal at Annexure A4 dated 28.09.2016 in OA No.1139/2013. The matter in relation at Annexure A4 may not be very relevant for the present purposes. The Tribunal in the instant case, as per the impugned Exhibit P4 final order in the present OA, has found that the above said finding made by the Tribunal in paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 for the APAR period 2010-2011 has become final and conclusive and **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **11** therefore, the fact finding made by the official respondents in the impugned rejection orders at Annexures A10 and A12, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the PRIS benefit is illegal and improper, since the sole ground for rejection is that the petitioner has not secured the 'Very Good' gradation for the APAR period 2010-2011. The Tribunal has found as per Ext.P4 that the said finding at Annexures A10 and A12 are absolutely wrong and the same goes against the considered fact finding made by the Tribunal after adjudication in terms of paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 order, and therefore, the gradation for the APAR period 2010-2011 should be legally treated as the petitioner have been secured 7.6 marks and not 5.4 marks as later down graded by the reviewing authority. The Tribunal also noted that, going by the norms, the gradation between 7 to 8 marks would fulfil the requisition of 'Very Good' and since the petitioner has secured 7.6 marks for the APAR period 2010-2011, the ground for rejection at Annexures A10 and A12 is legally wrong and unreasonable and therefore, the petitioner should be given the PRIS benefit for the year in question, in as much as he has indeed secured 'Very Good' gradation for the said 20102011 APAR period. 14. Before dealing with some of the main contentions urged by Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned ASGI appearing for the petitioner, we would refer to norms at Annexure A13 guidelines. Clause No.4 of Annexure A13 **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **12** guidelines dealing with APAR gradation reads as follows: _“4. APARs graded 6 and short of 8 will be rated as “Very Good” and will be given a score of 7.”_ 15. Now, the main contention urged by the learned ASGI on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the above said findings that, though it could be true that the official respondents have not challenged the findings and orders of the Tribunal at Annexure A3, the findings made by the Tribunal at paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 order for the APAR period 2010-2011 was not relevant and germane for the determination of the issues raised in Annexure A3 and therefore, the said findings are having no binding effect in the eye of law and the same cannot be countenanced at all. In that regard, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned ASGI appearing for the petitioner would point out that the APAR periods which are relevant in the case covered by Annexure A3 in respect of the petitioner's claim for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director, is for the APAR periods 20052006 up to 2009-2010, which is the 5 year period and that therefore, next APAR period 2010-2011 was not relevant or germane at all as far as selection issue covered by Annexure A3 verdict is concerned. Hence, it is pointed out that the above said findings made by the Tribunal at Annexure A12 as regards the APAR period 2010-2011 has no binding judicial effect, either on the basis of _resjudicata_ or otherwise and that the said findings made by the Tribunal at paragraph no.12 of Annexure A3 are only to be **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **13** held as factual observations made by the Tribunal which are not relevant or germane to the main issue decided and determined by the Tribunal at Annexure A3. Hence, it is pointed out that, the gradation for the APAR period 2010-2011 as far as the petitioner is concerned, can only be rated ad 'Good' and not 'Very Good' in as much as the overall rating of the petitioner, as finalized by the reviewing authority therein is only 5.4 marks. It is also argued that the reason as given by the official respondents at Annexures A10 and A12 rejection orders for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the PRIS benefit is legally correct and proper and further that, apart from Annexure A3, petitioner has not made any challenge as against the APAR gradation for 2010-2011 and therefore, the same remains as such. The said contentions raised by Sri. P.Vijayakumar, learned ASGI, are seriously contested and denied by Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein in the Original Application. 16. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised. It cannot be in dispute that the above said contention now raised by the learned ASGI on behalf of the petitioner regarding the findings at paragraph no. 12 of Annexure A3 verdict of the Tribunal, is a contention raised for the first time, and that too, before this Court at the time of final hearing. Such objection has not been raised by the petitioner herein neither by way of objection while filing the reply statement to the present **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **14** OA nor as such contention has raised at the time of final hearing which culminated in Ext.P4 final order by the Tribunal. So also such objection has not been raised by the petitioner either in the written statement filed subsequently in the OP on 25.02.2021. However, a feeble contention is urged in ground no.D of the present OP, which reads as follows: _“The Tribunal ought to have seen that the Order of Hyderabad Bench did not involve consideration of the APAR & ACR related to the relevant year 2010-2011.”_ 17. Except the above said plea, there is no specific contention urged as to the factual basis for raising such an objection. Only if factual basis of the said contention is raised, can be the respondents herein, the original applicants, be in a position to get reasonable opportunity to defend against the said objection. Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned advocate appearing for the respondent would strongly urge that the plea of the petitioners may not be entertained by this Court. Now, coming to the consideration of the said plea made on behalf of the petitioners, the following aspects are relevant. A reading of Annexure A3 or A4 or the reply statement filed in the present OA or in the pleadings in the present OP or in the pleadings in the statement filed by the petitioner is the present OP will not disclose in any manner as to how the APAR period 2010-2011 was not relevant and germane in the selection in question, which was decided in Annexures A3 and A4. If at all, it was not relevant and germane, the **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **15** petitioners should have immediately atleast filed an application for review before the Tribunal in that regard. That has not been chosen to be done. Therefore, the said findings made by the Tribunal cannot be ignored. It has to be borne in mind that the Tribunal is a high powered authority which is created by an Act of the Parliament, which has been framed by exercising the powers conferred under Article 323A of the Constitution of India. As held by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in _**L.Chandrakumar vs. Union of India and others [1997 (3) SCC 261]**_ , though the constitutional amendment is made as per Article 323A of the Constitution of India, depriving the power of judicial review conferred under High Courts, is in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Tribunal has to be treated as a high powered forum which is to exercise the powers as a Court of first instance in the matter of exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said judicial findings made by the said high powered adjudicating body cannot be ignored, in the manner as suggested by the petitioners. The above said findings and orders at Annexure A3 has been challenged by the petitioner in the original petition and on the other hand, they have fully acted upon such findings and orders made by the Tribunal at Annexure A3, as can be seen from the matters disclosed in Annexure A4 verdict of the Tribunal. The said fact finding made by the Tribunal at paragraph 12 of Annexure A3 has also been acted upon by the Tribunal , which led to the present verdict **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **16** at Ext.P4. At this stage, it is right and proper for this Court to upheld the said considered findings, and that too when the power of the Court of first instance to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is vested with the Tribunal. We are inclined to take the view that such an objection cannot be raised in such a light manner. 18. That apart, there are no factual objections raised by the petitioner as regards the correctness of the factual aspects stated by the Tribunal in Annexure A3, more particularly in paragraph no.12 thereon. Indisputably, there is no dispute for both sides that for the APAR period 2010-2011, reporting officer had awarded gradation of 7.6 marks to the petitioner, whereas the reviewing officer, without any notice to the petitioner and without any justifiable reasons, has down graded the said assessment and has granted him only 5.4 marks for the APAR period 2010-2011. The said action of the reviewing officer in having down graded the assessment given by the reporting officer in favour of the applicant from 7.6 marks to 5.4 marks is illegal and ultravires for reasons more that one. No justification whatsoever is offered by the reviewing officer before any such forum including before us as to the logic and reason to the same. That apart, indisputably, the reviewing officer has made such impugned action, without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which amounts to fragment violation of elementary principles of natural justice as **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **17** it inflicts serious adverse consequence on the petitioner and his career. Hence, it is only to be held that the said down gradation made by the reviewing officer for the APAR period 2010-2011 is illegal and ultravires and is only to be ignored. In other words, the down gradation made the reviewing officer by awarding only 5.4 marks and reducing the gradation from 7.6 marks as awarded by the reporting officer is to be treated as illegal for these reasons. Hence, it is only to be held that the petitioner's gradation for the APAR assessment period 2010-2011 is to be rated as 7.6 marks. 19. Going by the norms in paragraph no.4 of Annexure A13 guidelines in the matter of APAR gradations, APARs graded 6 and short of 8 will be rated as “Very Good” and will be given a score of 7. Hence, it is only to be held that the APAR gradation for the period 2010-2011 of the petitioner has to be treated as “Very Good” and not as “Good”. In that view of the matter, it is only to be held that, considering the fact finding made by the Tribunal at Annexure P4 is beyond any serious impeachment and objections of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. In matters like this, we have been constrained to hold so as otherwise, action like remit of the matter to the Tribunal would cause serious injustice to the petitioner, who is a senior citizen, and was retired from service as early as on 31.03.2013. Moreover, there cannot be any two views that any other reason is even possible in this matter, since only one reasonable view is possible in the facts of this case, it **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **18** will be highly unfair and unjust if we were to remit this matter to the Tribunal for consideration of that limited issue. Hence, for the above said reasons, we are constrained to hold as aforestated. 20. In order to ensure that all other contentions of the petitioners herein are also taken care of, we have given opportunity to the petitioners to file affidavit or statement in the matter. The petitioners herein have filed statement dated 25.02.2021 in this O.P. Paragraph no.2 of the said statement deals with some of the aspects mentioned as herein above. Paragraph no.2 of the statement reads as follows: _2. As per the orders dated 27-01-2021 the detail of the actual process involved in the consideration of benefit of Performance Related Incentive Scheme (Group) i.e. PRIS(G) is mentioned below:_ _“PRIS(G) incentive is awarded on annual basis (financial year) to the personnel of the Department of Atomic Energy and its constituent Units belonging to scientific, technical,administrative and auxiliary category - for the period 2009-10 onwards to be paid on or after 01.04.2010 and so on for the subsequent financial years, on achieving set targets by each group separately in the high end R&D areas or innovative technologies or programmatic goals in a particular financial year (Annex R-6). Individual members of each group should qualify to get the prescribed percentage and the percentage of PRIS(G) is determined separately for each group every year. The qualifying criteria to get PRIS(G) are:_ _(i) Each individual member of the group should have attendance of not less than 175 working days in the said financial year. Proportionate amount of PRIS(G) will be deducted for certain type of leave taken beyond 30 days singly or in combination [point (iii) (iv) of Annex - R/6]_ _(ii) Each individual member of the group should have ACR/APAR grading of “Very Good an above” in the said_ **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **19** _financial year (for SC/ST members ACR/APAR grading should be “Good and above”) [point (v) of Annex - R/6]._ 21. The most cardinal and relevant aspect of the matter is followed in paragraph no.3 of the statement dated 25.02.2021, filed by the petitioners herein, which reads as follows: _3. After evaluation by the Expert Committee, Department of Atomic Energy has accorded the sanction of prescribed percentage of PRIS(G) for each Group of Directorate of Purchase and Stores for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 vide OM No.30/6/201 I-SCS/8273 dated 28.07.2011. The petitioner belonged to Group No.5 viz. Hyderabad Regional Purchase Unit with 10% of PRIS(Group) award. The said Group No.5 consisted of 30 members as on 01.04.2010 and consisted of 26 members as on 31.03.2011 (reduced due to transfer and postings occurred during the year) including the Petitioner. The disbursing Authority of the Petitioner's Group viz. Pay and Accounts Officer, NFS, Hyderabad had been communicated vide Note No. DPS/PRIS(O&G)/VIG-2011/4701 dated 05.10.2011 for release of PRIS (O&G) - 2010-11 except the names of ineligible employees including the Petitioner who was ineligible due to not meeting requisite APAR grading of “VERY GOOD & ABOVE” during the period._ 22. It can be seen from a mere reading of paragraph no.3 of the said statement that, it is indeed admitted by the petitioners that there are 26 members in the group concerned and all the members of the said group except two were treated as ineligible. It is stated that the petitioner and other person could not be given the said benefit as their APAR gradation for the period 2010-2011 did not meet the requisite marks of very good and above. So, it can be seen from a mere reading of grounds for rejection made out in Annexures A10 and A11 as well as in paragraph no.3 of the **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **20** statement filed by the petitioners that the ground for rejection is on account of the fact that the APAR gradation for the period 2010-2011 is not Very Good, but only treated as Good. For the above said aspects, we have already held that the Tribunal has not committed any fault in holding that the gradation for the APAR period 2010-2011 is to be treated as Very Good and not as Good. Hence, it is only to be held that the Tribunal has rightly held that the impugned rejection orders at Annexures A10 and A12 are illegal and improper and the same are liable for quashment and that the petitioner shall be granted the PRIS benefit within two months without any further delay. At any rate, we have no materials to take the view that the said considered views rendered by the Tribunal at Ext.P4 is in any manner illegal. In other words, interdiction of this Court in exercise of the extraordinary discretionary constitutional power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for, as far as the considered verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P4 is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, we have noted that the Tribunal has given the directions and orders in Ext.P4, which has been rendered as early as on 27.11.2019, and the present OP has been filed before this Court on 12.03.2020. The time limit of two months stipulated for the compliance of the Tribunal's order at Ext.P4 has been elapsed long ago. Having regard to the long pendency of the matter and also the aspect that the respondent **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **21** herein is a senior citizen, retired from service as early as on 31.03.2013, we deem it fit and proper to order that the petitioners shall comply with the orders of the Tribunal at Ext.P4, without any further delay, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above original petition stands dismissed. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** ## **K. BABU, JUDGE** **uu** **03.04.2021** **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **22** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF OA NO.180/00998/2018 DATED 22.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DPS/PRIS(O&G)/VIG-2017/133 DATED 4.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA.** - **ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DPS/PRIS/ (O&G)/VIG-2017/3644 DATED 4.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA.** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF PAY FIXATION ON PROMOTION DATED 4.2.1999. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PPO NO.454531300087. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF ORDER DATED 8.2.2013 IN OA NO.1227/2011. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.9.2016 IN OA NO.1139/13 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1/1/(5)/2008-SCS/284 DATED 5.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1/1/(5) 2008-SCS/286 DATED 5.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1/1(40)/2010 SCS/8266 DATED 30.8.2010. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.30.6.2011-SCS/8273 DATED 28.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2017. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.1.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN OA NO.180/00998/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS** **OP (CAT).No.1 OF 2021** **23** **BEFORE THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **ANNEXURE R/1 TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.10.1992 ISSUED BY THE LAW MINISTRY.** **ANNEXURE R/2 TRUE COPY OF DAE OM NO.1/1(5)/2008-SCS/284 DATED 5.5.2009.** **ANNEXURE R/3 TRUE COPY OF DAE OM NO.1/1(5)/2008-SCS/285 DATED 5.5.2009. ANNEXURE R/4 TRUE COPY OF DAE OM NO.1/1(4)/2010-SCS/8266 DATED 30.8.2010.** **ANNEXURE R/5 TRUE COPY OF DAE OM NO.1/1(5)/2008-SCS/286 DATED 5.5.2009. ANNEXURE R/6 TRUE COPY OF DAE OM NO.1/1(4)/2010-SCS/8265 DATED 30.8.2010. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA NO.180/00998/2018 DATED 28.8.2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR FILLING UP OF APAR WITH NUMERICAL GRADING. ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.21011/1/2010-ESTT.A DATED 13.4.2010. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00998/2018 DATED 27.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH.**