SUJIT KUMAR BALA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sujit Kumar Bala
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
Click here to view full judgement.
PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. -
(1.) In my order dated November 20, 2019, I had recorded Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the petitioner as having
submitted that because his clients were given only the final
score by the countersigning authority, whose clients could
not know what original score had been given by the higher
authority which had been downgraded. Mr. Sanyal points
out today that the consistent stand of his client has been not
only the countersigning authority or the higher authority
had downgraded score but as purported to have been
admitted by the respondents in paragraph 16 of their
affidavit-in-opposition in W.P. 28080 (W) of 2015 which Mr. Sanyal's client has referred to in some detail at paragraph 11 of C.A.N. 4242 of 2017 taken up in W.P. 17550 (W) of 2012 so had the appraising authority. The contents of the said paragraph are interesting and bear repetition they are said hereinbelow:-
"...that the countersigning officer has been compelled to apply a percentage restriction because of adoption by the respondent company to the Bell Curve System of Performance Appraisal. In the Annexure "R-3" of the same Affidavit in Opposition, page no - 35, it has been shown in tabular form that this percentage restriction is also applied at Appraiser and Reviewer level. The respondent authorities in the annexure of Writ Application 28080 (W) of 2015 has stated in page no-105 and 118 that "while your achievements on Key Result Areas during the appraisal period 2012-13 and 2013-14 have been acknowledged, final Performance Assessment is done on overall performance basis of a comparative scale among a group of officers of same grade at different level of appraisal authorities which is inter-alia based on inter-se comparison in order to ensure normal "Bell Curve" distribution of performance in the organisation." In the SLP as mentioned in paragraph no-9 of this appliation, in the Grounds of Appeal (A) vide page no-15, the Company submitted that Employees in excess of 15000 in petitioner Corporation are being evaluated on the basis of Bell Curve Appraisal System from the year 2009..."
If this is a fact, then the arbitrariness of the respondent corporation is irredeemable.
(2.) Mr. Sanyal points out that Clause 7.2 of the Promotion Policy of 2000 at page 116 of the writ petition being W.P. 17550 (W) of 2012 would only operate in case of a fair rating but not in case of ratings of outstanding or satisfactory.
(3.) To the query of the Court, i.e., the Promotion Policy is read as a whole, then, unless the appraisee and the appraiser agree with the rating ready, no signature would be made on the form for appraisal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.