Sukhdev Singh vs M/O SKILL & DEVELOPMENT ENTEPRENEURSHIP

1



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH


M.A. No. 1500/2025
in
O.A.No.060/212/2017

Reserved on: 14.09.2026
Pronounced on: 28.09.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)

Sukhdev Singh son of Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged 67
years, Ex-Director, Government of India, Ministry of
Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, National Skill
Training Institute, earlier name Advance Training
Institute, Jodhpur, resident of Kirpal House, 465,
Phase II, Urban Estate, Patiala-147001.

….…Applicant

(BY ADVOCATE: Applicant in person)

VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship,
Kaushal Bhawan, New Delhi-110023.

2. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Shah Jahan
Road, New Delhi-110001.

….....Respondents

(BY ADVOCATE: Ms. Swati Arora for respdt. No. 1
Mr. B.B. Sharma for respdt. No. 2)

2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

2

O R D E R

Per: HON’BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The present Execution Application has been filed under Section 27
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 24 of the
CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking implementation and
execution of the order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure EA-1)
passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 212/2017. The
Applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal seeking
consideration for promotion to the post of Joint Director by
ignoring the uncommunicated below-benchmark ACRs. His first
O.A. was dismissed on 03.04.2003, and the subsequent writ
petition also failed. The matter ultimately reached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5892 of 2006 , decided on
23.04.2013, wherein principles regarding uncommunicated ACRs
were laid down and liberty was granted to the Applicant to seek
retrospective promotion by making a representation to the
competent authority.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, the Applicant made a
representation, which was rejected, resulting in further litigation.
On 20.01.2016, this Hon’ble Tribunal directed the respondents to
communicate the relevant ACRs, permit the Applicant to make
representations against the gradings and reconsider the same; it
was further directed that, if the grading was brought above the
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

3

prescribed benchmark, a Review DPC be held to consider the
Applicant for promotion as Joint Director from 2002 onwards, with
consequential benefits. In compliance, the respondents passed an
order dated 11.04.2016, whereby the ACRs for 2001-02 and
2002-03 were upgraded to “Very Good”, but the ACRs for 1998-
99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were not upgraded. Aggrieved
thereby, the Applicant filed O.A. No. 212/2017 .
3. The aforesaid O.A. was partly allowed vide order dated
17.12.2024 (Annexure EA-1) . This Hon’ble Tribunal partly
quashed and set aside the order dated 11.04.2016 insofar as it
related to rejection of upgradation of the Applicant’s ACRs for
1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and directed the respondents to
pass a speaking order after detailed consideration. The Tribunal
further directed that, if the Applicant was found eligible, a
Special/Review DPC be convened to consider his case for
promotion to the post of Joint Director from the date on which his
immediate junior was promoted, with the relevant exercise to be
completed within three months from receipt of the order.
4. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 13.03.2025
(Annexure EA-2) rejecting the Applicant’s claim for upgradation
of the aforesaid three ACRs and consequential promotion. The
Applicant contends that the said order does not comply with the
specific direction of this Hon’ble Tribunal to pass a detailed and
reasoned/speaking order, as no concrete reasons, adverse
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

4

incidents, complaints, warnings, memos or other material
justifying the below-benchmark grading have been disclosed. The
Applicant also obtained the Committee’s report through RTI,
enclosed as Annexure EA-3 , and contends that the Committee
likewise failed to disclose any reasons for non-upgradation and
instead stated that there was no “downgrading” of the ACRs.
According to the Applicant, the respondents have thus failed to
comply with the order dated 17.12.2024 in its true spirit and in
toto.
5. The Applicant further submits that he has been compelled to
undergo the seventh round of litigation and that he had earlier
filed Contempt Petition No. 91/2025, which was withdrawn on
30.05.2025 with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in
accordance with law. The Applicant therefore seeks execution of
the order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure EA-1) and consequential
directions to the respondents to comply with the same. Reliance
has also been placed upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment
dated 06.03.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025,
Periyammal (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani &
Anr. regarding expeditious disposal of execution petitions. The
Applicant accordingly prays that the Execution Application be
allowed and the respondents be directed to implement the order
dated 17.12.2024 without any further delay.
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

5

6. Reply has been filed to this Miscellaneous Application on behalf of
respondent No. 1 wherein it has been submitted that the applicant
had made a representation dated 07.03.2016 regarding non-
communication of his ACRs for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000,
2000-01 and 2001-02, which had allegedly been considered by the
DPC while considering his promotion. Vide order dated
11.04.2016, the applicant was informed that his ACRs for 2001-02
and 2002-03 had been upgraded to the benchmark of “Very
Good” , whereas there was no sufficient ground to interfere with
the ACRs for 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The applicant
thereafter filed O.A. No. 060/212/2017 challenging the said order.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure EA-1) ,
directed the respondents to pass a speaking order regarding the
ACRs for 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and, if the applicant
was found eligible, to convene a Special/Review DPC for
considering his promotion to the post of Joint Director from the
date of promotion of his immediate junior.
7. In compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 17.12.2024, the
respondents issued speaking order No. A-28018/1/2025-O/o
DEPT. SECY (ESTT. I) dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure EA-2). It is
submitted that the Competent Authority examined the
assessments made by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers for
the three ACRs and found that the Reporting Officer had made a
fair and independent assessment based on the applicant’s
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

6

performance during the relevant periods, which was also
concurred with by the Reviewing Officer. Consequently, the
applicant’s representation seeking upgradation of the ACRs for
1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was considered on the basis of
the relevant records and applicable rules and was rejected as
being without merit. The respondents therefore contend that the
Tribunal’s direction to pass a speaking order had been fully
complied with and that the allegation of contempt/non-compliance
is unfounded.
8. The respondent No. 1 has specifically relied upon the assessments
recorded in the three ACRs. For 1998-99, the Reporting Officer
recorded that the applicant was generally good in his work, while
the Reviewing Officer observed that he had done no meritorious
work in any field and had no special characteristics; the overall
grading was “Good.” For 1999-2000, the Reporting Officer stated
that the applicant generally did not come forward to accept
responsibility unless assigned to him, while the Reviewing Officer
described him as an average worker with nothing special; the
overall grading was “Average.” For 2000-01, the Reporting Officer
described him as diligent but accepting responsibility when
bestowed upon him, while the Reviewing Officer again assessed
him as an average official with no special characteristics; the
overall grading was “Average”. According to the respondents,
these gradings were consistent with the assessment under various
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

7

attributes such as attitude to work, initiative, achievements,
quality of performance, coordination and planning ability.
9. The respondent No. 1 further state that, pursuant to the Tribunal’s
directions, a Committee was constituted to assist the Competent
Authority in examining the applicant’s representation dated
07.03.2016. The Committee examined the assessments of the
Reporting Officer and found that the remarks were based upon the
applicant’s performance during the relevant reporting periods, and
these reasons were incorporated in the speaking order dated
13.03.2025 (Annexure EA-2) . The respondents also rely upon
DoP&T O.M. dated 13.04.2010, concerning disclosure of below-
benchmark ACRs before their consideration by a future DPC. They
contend that the ACRs involved in the present case relate to 1998-
2001, i.e. a period prior to the relevant period referred to in the
said O.M., and further submit that an “Average” grading was not,
by itself, treated as an adverse entry requiring communication
under the rules applicable at the relevant time.
10. The respondents distinguish the applicant’s ACRs for 2001-02 and
2002-03, which were upgraded to “Very Good”, from those for
1998-99 to 2000-01. According to them, the earlier ACRs were
upgraded because the overall grading recorded by the Reporting
Officer for 2001-02 and 2002-03 was not found to be
synchronized with the evaluation against various attributes and
the nature of work undertaken by the applicant. In contrast, the
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

8

respondents contend that the gradings of Good/Average for 1998-
99 to 2000-01 were consistent with the assessments recorded
against the relevant attributes. They also rely upon the Supreme
Court decision in Union of India & Ors. v. E.G. Nambudiri,
1991 (3) SCC 38 , to contend that, in the absence of a statutory
requirement, there was no general obligation to communicate
reasons for rejection of a representation against adverse remarks,
while asserting that in the present case reasons were in fact
recorded.
11. Finally, the respondent No. 1 maintains that since the applicant’s
representation for upgradation of the ACRs was rejected through
the speaking order dated 13.03.2025, the condition in the
Tribunal’s order dated 17.12.2024 for further consideration by a
Special/Review DPC did not arise. Their case is that the Tribunal
had directed a Review/Special DPC only if the applicant was found
eligible after reconsideration of the ACRs . Since the Competent
Authority did not upgrade the ACRs for 1998-99, 1999-2000 and
2000-01, the applicant was not found eligible for promotion and,
according to the respondents, there was therefore no further non-
compliance with the Tribunal’s order. On this basis, the
respondents pray that the present Miscellaneous/Execution
Application be dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit .
12. The Respondent No. 1 has also filed the Supplementary
Affidavit in compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

9

24.02.2026 in M.A. No. 1500/2025, seeking to clarify the
constitution and level of the Committee which considered the
Applicant’s representation dated 07.03.2016 for upgradation of
his below-benchmark ACR gradings for 1998-99 (Good), 1999-
2000 (Average) and 2000-2001 (Average). The Committee was
constituted vide Office Order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure
A/1) . The Respondents state that the Committee only
examined the matter and gave inputs, whereas the final
decision was taken by the Competent Authority, Director
General of Training (DG(T)) , who was of a higher level than the
Reporting and Reviewing Officers who had originally graded the
Applicant’s ACRs, allegedly satisfying the DoPT requirement.
13. The Respondent No. 1 further states that the Committee found
the Reporting Officer’s assessment to be fair and based on the
Applicant’s actual performance, duly corroborated by the
Reviewing Officer, whose remarks were consistent with the
Reporting Officer. They also contend that no advisory or formal
deficiency regarding the Applicant’s work had been
communicated during the relevant period. On consideration of
the Committee’s inputs and service records, the Competent
Authority declined to upgrade the ACR gradings, finding no
sufficient grounds for such upgradation, and the Respondents
maintain that the decision was in accordance with the
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

10

applicable rules and DoPT guidelines. The earlier reply filed by
Respondent No. 1 has also been reiterated.
14. Applicant who is appearing in person has also filed a rejoinder.
The applicant, in the rejoinder, submits that the reply filed by
Sh. Karnail Singh, Training Officer, NSTI Ludhiana, is factually
incorrect and misleading, particularly regarding the
representation dated 07.03.2016. It is pointed out that the
applicant had acknowledged receipt of the ACRs for the periods
1998-99 to 2002-03, rather than stating that they had not
been communicated. The applicant further contends that the
respondents have failed to address the substantive grievance
regarding the ACRs for 1998-99 to 2000-01, including non-
compliance with the prescribed Government instructions and
principles governing preparation of ACRs. According to the
applicant, the respondents have given no reply to the specific
issues raised in the representation dated 07.03.2016, including
absence of supporting records, specific instances of good/poor
performance, opportunity of hearing, remarks of the accepting
authority, and documentary evidence. The applicant also
alleges that the instructions dated 11.02.1998 regarding
writing of ACRs were not followed.
15. The applicant further submits that the respondents have not
furnished detailed reasons for rejection as required by the
judgment dated 17.12.2024 in OA No. 60/212/2017. It is
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

11

specifically pointed out that the competent authority took a
decision on 11.04.2016 only in respect of the ACRs for 2001-02
and 2002-03, observing that the applicant ought to have been
adjudged “Very Good”, while no decision/reasoned
consideration is shown for the ACRs for 1998-99 to 2000-01.
The applicant alleges that instead of implementing the
directions contained in the Supreme Court judgment dated
23.04.2013 in CA No. 5892/2006 , CAT judgment dated
20.01.2016 in OA No. 60/363/2014 and CAT judgment dated
17.12.2024 in OA No. 60/212/2017, the respondents continue
to rely upon the earlier position that “Good/Average” gradings
are not adverse and therefore need not be communicated. The
applicant therefore prays that the judgment dated 17.12.2024
(Annexure EA-1) be implemented and appropriate directions
be issued in view of the absence of detailed reasons for
rejection/non-upgradation of the ACRs for 1998-99 to 2000-01 .
16. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused
the order dated 17.12.2024 passed in O.A. No. 60/212/2017,
the subsequent speaking order dated 13.03.2025, the
report/inputs of the Committee constituted pursuant to the
directions of this Tribunal, the supplementary affidavit filed by
respondent No. 1 and the rejoinder filed by the applicant in
person. The limited question which arises for consideration in
the present Execution Application is whether the respondents
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

12

have substantially and effectively complied with the directions
contained in the order dated 17.12.2024.
17. By order dated 17.12.2024, this Tribunal had partly interfered
with the order dated 11.04.2016 and directed the respondents
to reconsider the applicant's claim in respect of the ACR
gradings for the years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and
to pass a speaking order after detailed consideration. It was
further directed that, in the event the applicant was found
eligible upon such reconsideration, a Special/Review DPC would
be convened for considering his case for promotion to the post
of Joint Director from the date on which his immediate junior
was promoted. Thus, the direction for convening a
Special/Review DPC was consequential and subject to the
applicant being found eligible after reconsideration of the ACRs.
18. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the aforesaid directions,
the respondents constituted a Committee vide Office Order
dated 03.02.2025, considered the applicant's representation
and the relevant ACRs, and thereafter the Competent
Authority, namely the Director General of Training, passed the
order dated 13.03.2025. The said order records consideration
of the assessments made by the Reporting and Reviewing
Officers in respect of the three ACRs and gives reasons for
declining to upgrade the gradings. The respondents have also
placed on record the basis on which the Committee examined
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

13

the matter and have clarified that the Committee only
furnished its inputs, whereas the final decision was taken by
the Competent Authority.
19. The applicant has questioned the correctness and sufficiency of
the reasons recorded by the respondents and has sought, in
substance, a further examination of the merits of his ACR
gradings. He has also relied upon various alleged deficiencies in
the preparation of the ACRs and upon the absence of
contemporaneous adverse material. However, in execution
proceedings, the Tribunal is primarily concerned with
determining whether the operative directions contained in the
order sought to be executed have been complied with. The
execution jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be converted into a
fresh adjudication on the merits of the administrative decision
taken pursuant to the original judgment, unless such decision is
demonstrably contrary to or in disregard of the specific
directions contained therein.
20. In the present case, the order dated 17.12.2024 did not direct
the respondents to necessarily upgrade the ACRs of the
applicant. The direction was to reconsider the matter and pass
a speaking order and, only if upon such reconsideration the
applicant was found eligible, to convene a Special/Review DPC.
The respondents have undertaken the reconsideration exercise
and have taken a decision, through the Competent Authority,
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

14

not to upgrade the ACRs for the three relevant years. Once the
applicant has not been found eligible upon such
reconsideration, the consequential direction regarding
constitution of a Special/Review DPC does not independently
survive for implementation.
21. We are also of the view that the grievance raised by the
applicant regarding the correctness of the assessment recorded
in his ACRs, the adequacy of the material relied upon by the
Reporting/Reviewing Officers and the alleged non-observance
of the instructions governing preparation of ACRs pertains
essentially to the merits of the administrative decision. Those
questions may be examined in appropriate substantive
proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law, but cannot be
reopened in the present execution proceedings merely on the
ground that the applicant is dissatisfied with the conclusion
reached by the Competent Authority.
22. Consequently, having regard to the nature of the directions
contained in the order dated 17.12.2024 and the subsequent
action taken by the respondents, we find that the respondents
have complied with the operative directions contained therein
by reconsidering the applicant's claim and passing the speaking
order dated 13.03.2025. Since the applicant has not been
found eligible upon such reconsideration, the consequential
requirement of convening a Special/Review DPC does not arise.
2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL

15

The present Execution/Miscellaneous Application, therefore,
does not disclose any further executable direction remaining to
be complied with and is accordingly dismissed.




(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)

ND*

2026.10.16 16:01:19+05'30'
NEERU DOUGALL