Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appellant's claim for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in United India Insurance Co Ltd for the year 2014-2015. The appellant, Pankaj Prakash, had received gradings in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) as follows: 2010-2011 'C', 2011-2012 'B', 2012-2013 'A', and 2013-2014 'A'. He contended that the entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed to him, preventing him from making a representation at the material time. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, which held that every entry in an APAR must be communicated, the appellant argued that the failure to communicate was contrary to law. He also pointed to Office Memoranda issued by the Union of India in 2009 and 2010, and a specific communication to public sector insurance companies in 2012, directing compliance. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed his writ petition and review petition, holding that absent an adverse entry or entry below the benchmark, non-communication did not result in an actionable grievance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgments. The Court held that the law in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh requires communication of every APAR entry, regardless of whether it is adverse or below benchmark. The respondent's argument that APARs were disclosed only from 2013-14 was rejected, as the judgment is declaratory in nature. The Court found that the non-communication caused prejudice because the appellant's 'B' grade for 2011-12 could have materially affected his promotion prospects; he secured 64.45 marks against the cut-off of 68.98. The Court directed the respondent to communicate the uncommunicated entries within one month, allow the appellant to submit objections within two months, consider the representation within three months, and then decide whether modification of the promotion decision is warranted. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Annual Performance Appraisal Report - Communication of Entries - Every entry in APAR, whether poor, fair, average, good or very good, must be communicated to the public servant within a reasonable period - Non-communication violates principles of natural justice and transparency - The law laid down in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India is declaratory and applies to all years, not only after implementation circulars (Paras 8-9). B) Service Law - Promotion - Non-Communication of APAR Entries - Prejudice - Where promotion depends on APAR grades, non-communication of lower grades (e.g., 'B' grade) can materially affect promotion prospects - Appellant secured 64.45 marks against cut-off 68.98; uncommunicated entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were relevant - Held that non-communication gives rise to a legitimate grievance (Paras 12-13). C) Service Law - Promotion - Relief - Completed Promotion Exercise - Even if promotion exercise is over, court can direct communication of uncommunicated entries, consideration of representation, and re-evaluation of promotion decision based on outcome - Directions issued for communication within one month, representation within two months, decision within three months (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Report entries for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the appellant, who was seeking promotion from Scale III to Scale IV, is contrary to law and whether the appellant is entitled to relief despite the promotion exercise being completed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and directed the respondent to communicate the uncommunicated APAR entries within one month, allow the appellant to submit representation within two months, consider it within three months, and then decide on modification of promotion decision. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Communication of every entry in Annual Performance Appraisal Report is mandatory
- Non-communication of APAR entries violates principles of natural justice
- Judgment of Supreme Court is declaratory in nature and applies retrospectively
- Representation against uncommunicated entries must be considered before promotion decision
