H.L. Hidco vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, H.L. Hidco, a Joint Commissioner (Appeals) in the Commercial Tax and GST Department, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated April 21, 2022. The petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2011-2015 were satisfactory. However, his ACR for 2016-17 was graded 'ग'. He made a representation on January 30, 2019, to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 partially allowed this representation, upgrading his ACR to 'ख'. The petitioner contended that 'ख' is not a benchmark for promotion and sought an upgrade from 'ग' to a higher benchmark. He requested permission to make a detailed representation and for the authority to decide it expeditiously after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with a limited prayer. It granted liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before Respondent No. 1, specifically claiming the up-gradation of his ACR for the year 2016-17. The Court expected that upon receipt of such a representation, the concerned authority would decide it in an objective manner, strictly in accordance with the law. The Court further directed that the decision should preferably be made within a period of 120 days. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether 'ख' is a benchmark for promotion or the specific grading required, focusing instead on procedural fairness and the opportunity for the petitioner to present his case fully.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an upgrade of his ACR for the year 2016-17 from 'ग' to a benchmark grade for promotion, considering that the current upgrade to 'ख' is insufficient for promotion? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his ACR for 2016-17 was graded 'ग', which is not a benchmark for promotion. He contended that while his representation was partially allowed, upgrading his ACR to 'ख', this grade is still not sufficient for promotion. He sought the liberty to file a detailed representation before Respondent No. 1 and for the concerned authority to decide it expeditiously after providing him with an opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner's original representation did not explicitly pray for an upgrade of his 2016-17 ACR from 'ग' to 'क'. Therefore, the concerned authority exercised its discretion and upgraded the ACR from 'ग' to 'ख'. The State submitted that the petition is misconceived and should be dismissed.