B M GARG Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-69
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 04,2013

B M Garg Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) FOR some years, petitioner received 'very good entries in his ACR and, in some years, he got 'good entries. Those were not communicated to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that, by reason of getting 'good entries during some of the years, his chance of being promoted is likely to be affected. There is no dispute that the 'good entries were not communicated to the petitioner. As a result, he had no occasion to know about the same and, accordingly, to make representations in respect thereof. It appears that he came to know about those entries only when he exercised his right under the Right to Information Act. It also appears that, soon thereafter, he has made a representation. The outcome of the said representation has not been brought on record in the counter affidavit. Instead, what has been brought on record in the counter affidavit is that the respondent employer had approached the Government and the Government has asked the respondent employer not to take any action, inasmuch as, the matter pertaining to right to know the annual confidential remarks and right to make representation in respect thereof and the consequence of breach thereof, is pending decision before a larger bench of the Honble Supreme Court. We personally feel that the Government has not appropriately advised the respondent employer. Pendency of a matter before a larger bench is not stay of the judgment already rendered by the Honble Supreme Court, which is binding even on the State under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Until such time the larger bench alters the binding judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, the binding judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is the law of the land. If the law pronounced by the Honble Supreme Court, rendered in two judgments, is conflicting with each other, the law obliges the State to follow the latter judgment, until such time, the same is interfered with by yet another judgment of the Honble Supreme Court.
(2.) BE that as it may, it would be appropriate on our part to direct the respondent employer to decide the said representation of the petitioner one way or the other and, while doing so, to consider, whether the 'good as awarded during the relevant years can be bettered by awarding 'very good or 'outstanding, as has been prayed for. Let the above exercise be completed as quickly as possible, but not later than 15 days from today. Let the decision be communicated to the petitioner within 7 days therefrom, where after, it shall be open for the respondent employer to hold DPC for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer.
(3.) THE writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.