ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

2. A three Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. affirmed the correctness of the view taken in Dev Dutt noting that an earlier three Judge Bench in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors. had adopted the same principle. [Para 14] [526-D-E] B C D E F G H ANIL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 523

3. In view of the Supreme Court judgments, both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in coming to the conclusion that CSIR being an autonomous entity and having adopted the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with effect from a specified date, the appellant could not make a grievance of the non-communication of the ACRs for the relevant period. [Para 16] [527-B]

4. The failure to communicate the ACRs deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation in the matter of financial upgradation. Subsequently, the appellant was furnished with an opportunity to submit his representation before his case was taken up for regular promotion, but his representation was not considered. [Para 17] [527-C]

5. The appellant did not have the benefit of submitting his representation when the Screening Committee took up the case for financial upgradation. CSIR by reason of its autonomy may have certain administrative privileges. No authority can, however, claim a privilege not to comply with a judgment of this Court. Once the law was enunciated in Dev Dutt’s case, all instrumentalities of the State were bound to follow the principles laid down by this Court. CSIR was no exception. [Para 18] [527-D-E]

6. The appellant has since retired from service on 30 September 2014. The grant of MACP benefit is not a matter of right and it is after the Screening Committee finds that the officer meets the benchmark that an upgradation can be granted. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant should be granted an opportunity, to submit his representation in respect of the ACRs for the concerned years where he did not fulfil the benchmark for financial upgradation. Upon the submission of his representation, the respondents shall consider it and communicate the outcome to the appellant. Based on that decision, the case of the appellant for financial upgradation shall be considered afresh. In the event his ACRs for the relevant period are upgraded, the case for financial upgradation shall be further determined and the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/ Controller of Administration shall be considered afresh by the Departmental Promotion Committee expeditiously. [Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22] [527-F-H; 528-A-B] A B C D E F G H 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.