Allowed

Podiyamma Oommen v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2019CW/7199/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the entry of adverse remarks in Appraisal Control Records and the resulting three-year deferral of the petitioner's third selection scale. The court held that unmet targets in welfare programmes do not justify adverse remarks and directed the respondents to compute the scale effective from December 29, 2024, instead of 2006. Similar to the court's decision in this cas

What did the court decide?

The respondent authorities are directed to revise the petitioner's third selection scale with effect from December 2003, along with consequential revision of pay allowances, salary, and pension within

Podiyamma Oommen Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 7199/2006

¶3

Podiyamma Oommen Wife Of Shri P.n. John, Jagdambha Nagar, Behind Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Working As Nurse, Rajasthan Ayurved Dispensary, Nahri Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Director, Ayurved Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer- 305 001

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Raj Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L.Saini AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

04/02/2019

¶13

The matter comes up on early listing application.

¶14

The writ petition is pending since 2006.

¶15

Considering the petitioner is now a senior citizen, the writ petition has been heard at this stage by consent of counsels for both the parties.

¶16

The petitioner by way of this writ petition, has prayed for declaring the ACR’s of the petitioner the year 2001 as null, void and illegal and also prays that the action of the respondents in not granting 3rd selection scale with effect from December, 2003 and deferring the same for three years that is 2006 be declared illegal and unjustified.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-7199/2006]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the ACR for the year 2001 adverse remark was entered to the effect that she had not achieved the targets laid down for Family Welfare Programmes.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation but the same was wrongfully rejected. It is submitted that not achieving targets of operations/vasectomy and hysterectomy in Family Welfare Programmes cannot be a ground to hold the record of the petitioner to be adverse and such entries in the ACR cannot be treated as adverse. He relies on the circular dated 16.4.2004 for the said purpose.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that for one adverse remark, the grant of third selection scale could be deferred for one year at best but deferring would not mean that selection would be deferred for three years. However, without considering the aforesaid, the respondents have deferred the selection scale from 30^th December, 2003 to 30^th December, 2006.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that since the adverse remark was not challenged at the relevant time, the same was considered for deferring the selection scale. However, he fairly states that even after deference, the selection scale has to be granted on completion of 27 years of service.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel and found that as per circular dated 16.4.2004, the adverse remark entered in the ACR of the petitioner in the year 2001 ought to have been ignored for the purpose of grant of selection scale as it is not mandatory for reaching to the targets of operation in Family Welfare

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-7199/2006]

¶26

Programmes, such non achieving of targets would not be sufficient to mark an adverse remark entry in the ACR.

¶27

Be that as it may, as this court has taken a view, the said adverse remark could not have come in granting third selection scale. The matter is given quietus with directions to the respondents to revise the third selection scale of the petitioner with effect from December, 2003 instead of 30^th December, 2006 and accordingly revise petitioner’s pay allowances and salary and also revise pension accordingly. The exercise shall be conducted within three months henceforth.

¶28

With the said directions, the writ petition is allowed.

¶29

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶30

Anu/

Podiyamma Oommen v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Podiyamma Oommen v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satendra Kumar Godara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amril-Esscon Vs North Western Railway Thr Gen Manger

Ajay Kumar Meena S/O Mohan Lal Meena Vs Central Industrial Security Force through Its Director General

Ram Chandra S/O Ganesha Ram, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shyam Singh S/O Shri Devi Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakti Singh S/O Shri Sultan Singh Vs Chairman, Army Public School