Non-communication of ACR entries combined with destruction of records during litigation necessitates notional promotion and pensionary benefits.

The appellant, a member of the Indian Railway Medical Service (IRMS), challenged her non-promotion to the post of Chief Medical Director in the Higher Administrative Grade (HAG)

Though eligible, she was bypassed on 06.12.2006 in favor of a junior officer

The Selection Committee (SC) denied her promotion on the grounds that she failed to meet the benchmark of ‘Very Good +’ (VG+), as she did not have two ‘Outstanding’ and three ‘Very Good’ ratings in the preceding five years

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her claim on 22.05.2007, and the Delhi High Court upheld this on 09.01.2009

The appellant contended that the Railways used an incorrect benchmark in violation of DoPT norms, failed to communicate adverse/lower ACR entries, and inadvertently weeded out her service records during the pendency of litigation

Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, establishing that the Ministry of Railways has the power to frame its own service conditions and is not bound by DoPT circulars unless specifically adopted

Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. R.K. Kushwaha (2018) to affirm the Railways' autonomy in rule-making

Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) and the larger bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), which mandate that every entry in an ACR (regardless of nomenclature) must be communicated to a public servant if it has civil consequences, such as affecting promotion chances

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2008) regarding retrospective benefits for non-communication

The Court first clarified that the ‘VG+’ benchmark was validly applied because the Railways, under the 1961 Rules, had specifically prescribed it via a 2002 Circular, overriding general DoPT OMs

Based on Dev Dutt, the Court reasoned that even ‘Very Good’ entries must be communicated if they act as a ‘technical’ bar to promotion

The appellant had proactively requested her ACRs in 2005, yet they were withheld

The SC’s award of “19.5 marks” was found arbitrary as the 1996 policy only allowed whole numbers (e.g., 4 points for Very Good), and the respondents failed to justify the fraction

The Court drew an adverse inference against the Railways for “inadvertently” weeding out the appellant’s records in 2013 despite the ongoing litigation, concluding that these cumulative factors resulted in a denial of fair treatment

It held that the appellant was prejudiced by the non-supply of ACRs, the destruction of records, and the arbitrary award of fractional points

The Court granted the appellant notional promotion to the HAG grade (₹22,400-24,500) and directed the re-fixation of her pension and retiral benefits based on that grade. However, direct arrears of salary (backwages) were denied on the ground that no actual work was performed in that post. Arrears of pension must be paid within two months