Image source:

This article is written by Kanya Saluja from the Institute of Law, Nirma University. The article talks about the case of Anil Kumar v. UOI in which the Supreme Court observed that no authority can guarantee a benefit to not comply with its judgment. The seat involving Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta mentioned this objective fact while permitting an intrigue documented by a representative of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). 


With much fulfillment, it must be commented directly at the start that in a most recent, milestone and excellent judgment by a two-Judge bench of the apex court in the case of Anil Kumar v Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 888 of 2019 (emerging out of SLP (C) 32073 of 2016) and composed by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud for himself and Justice Hemant Gupta, conveyed on January 21, 2019, unmistakably and convincingly saw that no authority can guarantee a privilege not to agree to its judgment. Rightly so! Who will regard the Supreme Court if any authority is given the liberated and unencumbered power to not agree with the Supreme Court judgment? Will any authority be ever given such power? Unquestionably not!

The apex court bench mentioned this incredibly pertinent objective fact as pointed above, while permitting an intrigue documented by a worker of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Beginning from the scratch, “The appealing party was distressed by the dismissal of his case for money related up-gradation by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR”) with impact from 10 May, 2011. He was additionally oppressed by not being elevated to the post of Senior Controller of Administration/Senior Deputy Secretary in Pay Band-4 for example Rs. 37,400-67,000 with an evaluation pay of Rs. 8700 regarding opportunities for 2013-2014 under the CSIR Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Administrative Staff, 1982.”

Undoubtedly, it was then brought up that, “He moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal didn’t discover any substance in his complaint for the explanation that he didn’t satisfy the benchmark of “Excellent” for budgetary up-gradation. The Tribunal was of the view that CSIR is a self-ruling body and that the fliers given by the Union of India would not ipso facto apply.”

As things stood, the Bench tried to clarify that, “The appealing party complained that the inability to convey the Annual Confidential Reports where he had neglected to meet the benchmark disregarded the O.Ms given by the Department of Personnel and Training. The Tribunal dismissed that conflict holding that since CSIR had received the prerequisite of passing on the ACRs from a specific date, later on, the choice couldn’t be addressed.”


The bench at that point indicates that “On the issue of advancement, it has been held that this included a choice based on execution in administration and the meeting and since the Departmental Promotion Committee had evaluated the appealing party as “good”, he was not considered for advancement. This perspective on the Central Administrative Tribunal was tested under the steady gaze of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By a judgment dated 13 July, 2006, the writ request recorded by the Appellant was dismissed.”

As it turned out, the Apex Court Bench at that point explains that “The main complaint of the appealing party was that he was qualified for the budgetary up degree under the MACP conspire received by CSIR. It isn’t in question that the benchmark endorsed was “Awesome” for monetary up-gradation to the evaluation pay of Rs. 7600/- or more. CSIR, by its letter dated 30 December, 2013, told the qualification of the litigant for the award of money related up-gradation with impact from 10 May 2011.”

Proceeding, it is then brought up that, “Also, by its roundabout dated 6 February 2014, CSIR gave an All India Final Seniority List of Common Cadre Officers as on 1 January, 2014. The name of the appellant remained at Serial No. 2 in the class of Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration. On 9 May 2014, CSIR announced the consequence of the activity directed by the screening committee which met on 21 April, 2014. The name of the appealing party didn’t show up in the rundown of officers for monetary up-gradation from 10 May 2011.” More directly, it is then drawn out that, “The ACRs of the litigant were underneath the benchmark required for specific years in particular 2003-2004, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The gradings to the appealing party on 9 July, 2014 to which he presented a representation and showed up for the interview for general promotion for 2013-2014. The complaint is that the representation was not considered.”

Additionally, it is then likewise brought out in this judgment that, “When the board for the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Senior Controller of Administration for 2013-2014 was informed, officers junior to the appealing party were impaneled for advancement. The appealing party was neither allowed a budgetary up-gradation nor was he advanced as a piece of the activity of normal advancement to the higher post. The High Court certified the perspective on the Tribunal and dismissed the writ request recorded by the candidate.”

Reference cases discussed

Be it noticed, the bench at that point while referring to the significant prior cases observed that, “In Dev Dutt versus Union of India and Ors (2008) 8 SCC 725, a two-Judge Bench of this court held that reasonableness in policy implementation and straightforwardness necessitate that all passages in the Annual Confidential ReportS (ACR) of a local official must be imparted inside a sensible period to empower the worker to make a portrayal for up-gradation. The perspective on the court was that non-correspondence of passages in the ACRs has common results since it might influence the odds of the representative for advancement and different advantages. An inability to convey would be subjective. This Court held that these headings would apply to workers of legal specialists, open part organizations, and different instrumentalities of the State, notwithstanding government hirelings.”

Pushing forward, it is then brought up by the bench that, “A three-Judge Bench of this Court has in Sukhdev Singh versus Union of India and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566, avowed the rightness of the view taken in Dev Dutt (supra) taking note of that a previous three-Judge Bench in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146. had embraced a similar rule.” The three-Judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh (supra), held that the view taken in Dev Dutt that each section in ACR of a local official must be imparted to him/her inside a sensible period is legitimately solid and will help in accomplishing triple targets. Initially, the correspondence of each passage in the ACR to a local official encourages him/her to work more enthusiastically and accomplish more that causes him to improve his work and give better outcomes. 

Second and similarly significant, on being made mindful of the section in the ACR, the community worker may feel disappointed with the equivalent. Correspondence of the section empowers him/her to make a portrayal for the up-gradation of the comments entered in the ACR. Third, correspondence of each section in the ACR gets straightforwardness recording the comments identifying with a local official and the framework turns out to be all the more fitting in with the standards of characteristic justice. 

Thus, they held that each section is poor, reasonable, normal, good, or very good must be conveyed to him/her within a reasonable period.


To place things in context, the apex court bench at that point calls attention to that, “Taking into account the above explanation of the law, both the Tribunal and the High Court were in mistake in coming at the conclusion that CSIR being an independent substance, and having received the O.Ms of the Department of Personnel and Training with impact from a predefined date, the litigant couldn’t make a complaint of the non-correspondence of the ACRs for the important period. The inability to impart the ACRs denied the appealing party of the chance to present his portrayal in the matter of money related up-gradation. In this way, the appealing party was outfitted with a chance to present his portrayal before his case was taken up for normal advancement, yet his portrayal was not thought of.”

All the more significantly, the Bench at that point expresses that, “The appealing party didn’t have the advantage of presenting his portrayal when the Screening Committee took up the case for monetary up-gradation. CSIR because of its independence may have certain authoritative privileges. No authority can, nonetheless, guarantee a privilege not to consent to a judgment of this Court. When the law was articulated in Dev Dutt’s case (supra), all instrumentalities of the State will undoubtedly follow this Court. CSIR was no special case.”


Without a doubt, the Bench at that point further expresses that, “The appealing party has since resigned from the administration on 30 September 2014. The award of MACP advantage doesn’t involve right and it is after the Screening Committee finds that the officer meets the benchmark that an up-gradation can be conceded. Henceforth, we are of the view that the appealing party ought to be conceded a chance, inside a time of about a month from today to present his portrayal in regard of the ACRs for the concerned years where he didn’t satisfy the benchmark for monetary up-gradation.”

Proceeding in the same vein, the Bench at that point includes that, “Upon the accommodation of his portrayal, the respondents will think about it and impart the result to the appealing party within a time of two months from that point. Given that choice, the instance of the appealing party for money related up-gradation will be considered once again. On the occasion his ACRs for the important period are updated, the case for money related up-gradation will be resolved inside a time of a quarter of a year from that point.”

At last and above all, the bench at that point finishes up by seeing that, “We likewise direct that if the ACRs for the significant period is redesigned, the instance of the appealing party for advancement to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary/Controller of Administration will be considered once more by the Departmental Promotion Committee quickly. This activity will be done concerning the date on which his lesser in administration came to be advanced. If the instance of the appealing party is considered, he would be qualified for every noteworthy advantage which streams from the budgetary up-gradation and upon the award of standard advancement to the post of Senior Deputy Secretary. The intrigue is, likewise, permitted and the judgment of the High Court will stand put in a safe spot. Pending application(s), assuming any, will stand discarded. No structure as to costs.”


All said and done, there is no legitimate motivation behind why any individual or authority set out to address what the Supreme Court has so properly held in this milestone and commendable case. It is about time and all specialists must conform to it genuinely and consistently. No authority should ever stick to the bogus fantasy that it can bear to guarantee privilege not to consent to the Supreme Court judgment.

Bluntly put: If they despite everything won’t even now consent, nobody, however, they will themselves be liable for confronting the critical outcomes which would follow from such refusal, and afterward nobody can spare them. Do they need such unpalatable circumstances to emerge and endure the critical results? Positively not! In this way, the specialists should wake up at present and agree genuinely with what the Supreme Court, which is the top most court of India, has said unequivocally.



LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here