Mohammed Ali vs Union Of India & Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the 3rd respondent institution which is under the Northern Railway, the 2nd respondent herein. He has also retired from service on 31.08.2018.

For the year 2016-17, the Reporting Authority graded him in the APAR as "Very Good", whereas the Reviewing Authority downgraded that to the level of "Good". The applicant made a representation to the Competent Authority on 22.11.2018, with a request to maintain the gradation given by the Reporting Authority. His grievance is that no steps have been taken thereon.

The applicant further contends that on account of the gradation given by the Reviewing Authority, he has been denied the second financial upgradation in the service. Hence, he filed this OA claiming various reliefs in this behalf.

We heard Sh. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Krishna Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.

The limited grievance of the applicant is about the down gradation by the Reviewing Authority, in the APAR for the year 2016-17. Though the applicant has raised several contentions in this behalf, we do not intend to address the same. He has already made representations to the Competent Authority ventilating his grievances. The same needs to be disposed of by the Chief Personnel Officer, Northern Railway (Respondent No. 2). Since the order that may be passed by the Respondent No. 2, would have its impact upon the pay structure of the Applicant, an early action is needed.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA by directing the Respondent No.2 to pass an order on the representations of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.