Revised ACR gradings require a Review DPC to reconsider earlier promotions.

The applicant, a Scientist in the National Institute of Hydrology, joined service as Scientist “C” on 30 August 1990. He was subsequently promoted from Scientist “C” to Scientist “E-1” with effect from 1 January 1999. His later promotions were from Scientist “E-1” to “E-2” on 2 July 2009, from “E-2” to “F” on 25 May 2011, and from “F” to “G” with effect from 1 July 2015.

The promotions to the higher grades had been assessed on the basis of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). By Office Note dated 2 January 2013, the adverse/revised gradings awarded by the then Director as Reviewing Officer for 1998–1999 and 1999–2000 were expunged, and the Reporting Officer’s gradings of “Outstanding” were directed to be treated as final.

The applicant contended that the revised ACRs enhanced his assessment scores and entitled him to retrospective promotions from “E-1” to “E-2” with effect from 1 January 2003, from “E-2” to “F” with effect from 1 January 2004, and from “F” to “G” under the Assessment Promotion Scheme, initially claiming effect from 1 January 2012.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the applicant’s earlier assessments, the applicable residency requirements, and the requirement of 16 years’ combined service for promotion from Scientist “E-2” to Scientist “F”.

The applicant superannuated on 31 May 2016, and the Original Application remained pending thereafter.

1. Whether the subsequent correction of the applicant’s ACR gradings required the respondents to reconsider his eligibility and entitlement to retrospective Assessment Promotion through a Review DPC.

2. Whether, on applying the revised ACRs and the applicable Assessment Promotion Scheme, the applicant was entitled to promotion from Scientist “E-1” to “E-2” with effect from 1 January 2003.

3. Whether the applicant could claim promotion from Scientist “E-2” to “F” by treating his service as a Scientist “C” as equivalent service for reducing the prescribed 16-year combined-service requirement.

4. Whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective promotion from Scientist “F” to “G” on the basis of the revised ACRs and the applicable residency and eligibility requirements.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Original Application was filed.

It applied the relevant Assessment Promotion Scheme provisions, particularly Clause 5(a), prescribing minimum residency periods linked to performance—four years for Scientist “E-1” to “E-2” and five years for Scientist “E-2” to “F”.

Clause 5(c), requiring 16 years’ combined service as Scientist “B”, “C”, “E-1” and “E-2” or equivalent, together with five years’ combined residency at the “E-1”/“E-2” levels for promotion to Scientist “F”.

Clause 5(d) and the ACR-based screening and performance benchmarks under Clause 5(d).

The governing principle applied was that once the competent authority corrected the applicant’s ACR record, the corrected and legally subsisting record had to be considered for promotion; the earlier consideration based on superseded gradings could not defeat a lawful review.

The Tribunal also held that service as Scientist “C” did not automatically constitute equivalent service for purposes of bypassing or reducing the Scheme’s 16-year combined-service requirement, particularly where equivalence was left to the competent authority and the Scheme itself had not been challenged.

The Tribunal held that the 2 January 2013 Office Note materially altered the applicant’s assessment record by replacing the Reviewing Officer’s gradings with “Outstanding” gradings awarded by the Reporting Officer.

Since eligibility under the Assessment Promotion Scheme depended substantially on ACR gradings and prescribed benchmarks, the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s case on the basis of the corrected record rather than rely on the earlier assessments.

The Tribunal accepted that, with the revised ACRs, the applicant’s claim for consideration from Scientist “E-1” to “E-2” had to be reopened and that the prescribed four-year residency requirement was satisfied by 1 January 2003.

However, it rejected the argument that his initial appointment as Scientist “C” automatically entitled him to treat his service as equivalent for purposes of reducing the 16-year combined-service requirement for promotion to Scientist “F”.

Nevertheless, subject to fulfilment of the revised ACR benchmarks and all other eligibility conditions, his case for promotion to Scientist “F”, and thereafter to Scientist “G”, was required to be reconsidered through a Review DPC.

The Tribunal directed that the applicant’s promotions be antedated as follows: (i) Scientist “E-1” to Scientist “E-2” with effect from 1 January 2003; (ii) Scientist “E-2” to Scientist “F” with effect from 1 January 2007; and (iii) Scientist “F” to Scientist “G” with effect from 1 January 2013.

The benefits were directed to be granted on a notional basis, with consequential revision of the applicant’s pension, and no costs were awarded.