Supreme Court of India
PANKAJ PRAKASHversusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 745
- Decided
- 10 July 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
Every entry in a public servant’s Annual Performance Appraisal Report must be communicated within a reasonable period, and failure to do so creates a legitimate grievance actionable under the principles laid down in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh.
Summary
Pankaj Prakash, a public servant of United India Insurance Co., sought promotion from Scale III to Scale IV for the 2014-15 year but alleged that his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were never communicated, preventing him from filing a representation. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his writ, holding that no actionable grievance arose in the absence of an adverse entry. On appeal, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rulings in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India that every entry in a public servant’s ACR must be communicated within a reasonable period, and that non‑communication gives rise to a legitimate grievance. The Court observed that the undisclosed lower grading for 2011-12 materially affected the promotion outcome and that the Union’s Office Memoranda imposed a duty on the respondent to disclose all entries irrespective of the implementation date. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court judgments, directed the respondent to communicate the missing entries, allow the appellant to submit representations, and consider any modification to the promotion decision. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to communicate entries of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report violates the principle that every entry must be communicated within a reasonable period.
- Whether such failure gives rise to a legitimate grievance actionable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Union of India's Office Memoranda impose a duty on public sector insurance companies to disclose APAR entries for all years, irrespective of the date of implementation.
- What appropriate relief can be granted when the promotion exercise is completed but the grievance persists.
Subjects
Annual Performance Appraisal ReportAPARpromotionpublic servicenatural justiceright to representationservice lawcommunication of entrieslegitimate grievanceSupreme Court
Judgment
942 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 9 S.C.R. 942 [2019] 9 S.C.R.
A PANKAJ PRAKASH
v.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5340-5341 of 2019)
B 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
C
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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
942
PANKAJ PRAKASH v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. 943
Scale IV. For one of the years under consideration (2011-12) for A
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
B
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 C
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] D
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 E
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 F
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] G
*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.
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.
A 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-
B 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. 103173
of 2016 respectively
C Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Romil Pathak, Shailja Nanda Mishra,
Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
P. P. Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Vineet Malhotra, Mohit Paul, Yasir Rauf,
Shubhendu Kaushik, Ms. Sunaina Paul, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute in the present case arises from the appellant’s
claim for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the services of the
E respondents. The year of promotion is 2014-2015.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that the entries in his Annual
Performance Appraisal Report1 for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not
disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation
at the material time. The appellant had the following gradings in the
F APARs:
(i) 2010-2011 “C”
(ii) 2011-2012 “B”
(iii) 2012-2013 “A”
G (iv) 2013-2014 “A”
4. Relying on the two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Dev
Dutt v Union of India2and the subsequent decision of the three-judge
1
“APAR”
H
PANKAJ PRAKASH v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. 945
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Bench in Sukhdev Singh v Union of India3, the appellant contended A
that the failure to communicate the entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 is
contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Moreover, it has been
submitted that on 14 May 2009 and 13 April 2010, the Union of India in
the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department
of Personnel and Training) had issued directions for implementation of
B
the decision in Dev Dutt (supra). Thereafter, on 19 October 2012, the
Union of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial
Services) had drawn the attention of public sector insurance companies
to the earlier Office Memorandum dated 14 May 2009 seeking immediate
compliance. In this background, it has been submitted that the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was moved by the appellant in C
proceedings under Article 226, was in error in coming to the conclusion
that absent an adverse entry or an entry below the benchmark, the failure
to communicate did not result in an actionable grievance. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment dated 6 October 2016
as well as the review petition by its judgment dated 17 January 2017.
D
The present proceedings were instituted assailing the judgments of the
High Court.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has
been stated that following a circular dated 18 March 2014, all public
sector insurance companies have disclosed APARs since appraisal year
2013-14. It has been submitted that in consequence, there was no E
necessity to disclose the APARs to the appellant for the relevant years
(2010-11 and 2011-12).
6. Adopting the line of submission which has been set out in the
counter affidavit, Mr P P Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, submitted that in terms of the Promotion Policy F
for Officers – 20064, promotions from Scale III to Scale IV are based
on (i) a written test; (ii) the work record; and (iii) seniority. It was
submitted that in the present case the appellant failed to fulfill the cut-off
for promotion of 68.98 marks, as disclosed to him on 9 September 2014.
7. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf G
of the appellant, submitted that the defence which has been set out on
behalf of the respondent has no substance since, following the law laid
2
(2008) 8 SCC 725
3
(2013) 9 SCC 566
4
Annexure P-1 H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.
A down by this Court in Dev Dutt (supra), all entries in the APARs are
required to be communicated. Non-communication of the entries, in the
present case, is a matter of prejudice since the communication dated 9
September 2014 indicates that, in appraising his work record, the appellant
was given 40.15 marks out of a maximum of 45. This indicates that the
uncommunicated entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 have weighed against
B
him.
8. While assessing the rival submissions, we must, at the outset,
note that the law laid down by the two-judge Bench of this court in Dev
Dutt (supra) has been reaffirmed by three judges in Sukhdev Singh
(supra). In Sukhdev Singh (supra), this Court held:
C
“8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt [Dev Dutt v. Union
of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] that
every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to
him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in
achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every
D entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder
and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give
better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware
of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied
with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to
E make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in
the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings
transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant
and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of
natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR—
poor, fair, average, good or very good—must be communicated to
F him/her within a reasonable period.”
9. The Union of India had also issued Office Memoranda on 14
May 2009 and 13 April 2010 seeking compliance by all Ministries and
Departments. Moreover, on 19 October 2012, a specific communication
was also addressed to public sector insurance companies. Even
G 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. The judgment of this Court is declaratory in nature.
H
PANKAJ PRAKASH v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. 947
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, A
while placing reliance on the disclosure made to the appellant on 9
September 2014, submitted that even if a communication were to be
made, no difference would result in the ultimate outcome. Mr. Malhotra
urged that the promotion for 2014-15 depended on the APARs for 2011-
12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.
B
11. The relevant part of the communication dated 9 September
2014 provides thus:
“1. The marks secured by you in the Promotion Exercise 2014-15
is as under:
Normal Channel Fast Track C
Written Test 20.1 26.81
Work Record (WR) 40.15 35.69
Seniority 4.2 N/A
D
Interview N/A 16
Total 64.45 78.5
2. The cut-off marks for promotion (Scale III to IV) is as under:
E
Normal Channel 68.98
Fast Track 84.14"
12. The above communication indicates that for the normal
channel, with which we are concerned, the appellant secured 64.45 marks
against the cut-off of 68.98 for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV. F
13. Admittedly, 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 G
from Scale III to Scale IV for the year in question. The non-
communication of the entries is, therefore, a matter in respect of which
a legitimate grievance can be made by the appellant, particularly having
regard to the position in law laid down in Dev Dutt (supra) and Sukhdev
Singh (supra).
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R.
A 14. The next question to consider is the substantive relief which
should be granted to the appellant. 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
B
relevant years which were taken into consideration during the promotional
exercise for 2014-15.
15. We issue the following directions:
(i) Within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
C certified copy of this order, the respondent shall 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;
(ii) Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the
D above, it would be open to the appellant to submit his objections
and representation to the respondent;
(iii) The representation shall be considered within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of the representation;
(iv) Thereafter, based on the result of the decision, the competent
E authority shall 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; and
(v) In order to ensure that this exercise is carried out fairly, we
direct that the competent authority shall ensure that the
F representation that is submitted by the appellant is placed
before an authority at a sufficiently senior level to obviate
any bias or injustice.
16 The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set
aside. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. There shall be no
G order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Annual Performance Appraisal Report"Sign in to search