Supreme Court Grants Notional HAG Promotion to Railway Doctor After ACR Destruction and Fractional Scoring

A Division Bench found that non-communication of ACRs, destruction of service records during litigation, and fractional point-scoring without policy basis collectively prejudiced a railway medical officer's promotion.

The Supreme Court has allowed the civil appeal of Dr. Indira Saranath, a retired officer of the Indian Railway Medical Service, holding that she was not treated fairly when her candidature for promotion to Chief Medical Director in the Higher Administrative Grade was assessed in 2006. A Division Bench of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, deciding Civil Appeal No. 2536 of 2011 on 26 May 2026, set aside concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. The Court directed that Dr. Saranath be treated as notionally promoted to the HAG grade carrying the pay scale of ₹22,400–24,500 (refixed), with her pension and other retiral benefits refixed accordingly. The judgment turns on three compounding failures: the Railway Board never communicated her ACR entries to her, it destroyed her service records while her appeal was pending before the Supreme Court itself, and the Selection Committee awarded her 19.5 points — a fraction for which no basis existed in the Railway Board's own promotion policy.

How the Dispute Reached the Supreme Court

Dr. Saranath was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the IRMS and rose through the service to the Senior Administrative Grade. On 6 December 2006, the Railway Board published two lists promoting officers from SAG to CMD in HAG. Dr. Saranath was not among those promoted. She was placed at serial No. 10 in the list of candidates considered by the Selection Committee, which on 10 August 2006 recommended six officers for empanelment. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved that recommendation on 12 November 2006.

Dr. Saranath challenged the promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking to quash the promotion of respondents 3 to 9 and claiming promotion for herself. The Tribunal dismissed her Original Application on 22 May 2007, holding that she had not secured the benchmark grading of “Very Good+” required for promotion to HAG. The Delhi High Court upheld that finding on 9 January 2009, observing that neither the Railway Board's Resolution dated 28 March 2000 nor its Circular dated 3 June 2002 prescribing the VG+ benchmark had been challenged, and that the competence of the Selection Committee could not be faulted. Dr. Saranath filed the present civil appeal, and the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents on 24 July 2009. She had retired from service on 31 May 2008.

The Three Grounds of Challenge

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta argued three distinct grounds on behalf of Dr. Saranath. First, the Selection Committee applied the VG+ benchmark in violation of the relevant service rules: the Department of Personnel and Training had issued an Office Memorandum on 8 February 2002 prescribing a benchmark of “Very Good”, and that OM directed that any conflicting OM be treated as modified to that extent. Second, uncommunicated adverse entries in her ACRs had been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee, depriving her of any opportunity to represent against them. He relied on Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008 INSC 630) and the subsequent three-judge bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013 INSC 275), which held that all ACR entries — adverse or otherwise — must be communicated to the concerned employee. Third, the Railway Board had weeded out her service records despite the pendency of these very proceedings, and an adverse inference was warranted.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, for the respondents, countered that the Railways were not bound by DoPT OMs, having the power under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 to frame their own service conditions. He relied on Prabhat Ranjan Singh v. R.K. Kushwaha (2018 INSC 796) on this point. On the ACR issue, he submitted that prior to 2008–09 only “Average” or “Below Average” entries were communicated, and that Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh had no retrospective application. He also relied on Union of India v. Chaman Rana (2018 INSC 230) to resist any direction for retrospective promotion. On the weeded records, he said the career card containing a summary of final gradings remained available and no prejudice had been caused.

Wrong Benchmark: Ground Rejected

The Court disposed of the benchmark argument quickly by applying Prabhat Ranjan Singh. That decision had directly addressed whether the Railways were bound by DoPT rules, and concluded that the Ministry of Railways had independent power under the Rules of 1961 to lay down service conditions for its employees. A DoPT circular would apply to the Railways only if the Railways specifically accepted it. The Court found that the Railway Board had, on 3 June 2002, issued its own Circular prescribing VG+ as the benchmark for promotion to HAG — expressly noting that “stringent criteria of selection shall apply for promotion to HAG” — and that this Circular governed the appellant's case. The Selection Committee had applied this benchmark while considering all ten candidates. The first ground of challenge was rejected.

Non-Communication of ACRs: The Pivotal Issue

The Court's analysis of the ACR communication issue is the heart of the judgment. The Minutes of the Selection Committee's proceedings on 10 August 2006 showed that ACRs for the period March 2002 to March 2006 were considered, and that Dr. Saranath's grading for all five years was “Very Good”. She was also noted as fit for consideration. Yet she was not promoted.

The respondents argued that the obligation to communicate all ACR entries arose only after Dev Dutt (decided 12 May 2008) and the DoPT's consequential OM of 14 May 2009, which the Railway Board adopted by its letter of 18 August 2009. These steps were prospective from 2008–09. The Court rejected this framing. It noted that even before the Selection Committee met, Dr. Saranath had written to the Director General, Railway Health Services on 28 December 2005 seeking a review of her confidential reports, stating that they had not been properly assessed for reasons unconnected with her duties. She had repeated this demand before the Tribunal and before the High Court.

The Court distinguished Chaman Rana on its facts. In that case, the employees had been superseded in 1997 and 2001–02 respectively but approached the High Court only in 2015, after years of representations. The direction for retrospective promotion was set aside because of the extreme delay and the risk of administrative chaos. The present case was different: Dr. Saranath had filed her Original Application promptly and pursued the matter continuously through the Tribunal, the High Court, and this Court.

The Court then applied the three-judge bench decision in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 26566 of 2004, decided 22 October 2008). In that case, two adverse entries from 1997–98 had not been communicated to the officer before a DPC considered his case in 1999 and 2001. The Court had held that non-communication of ACR entries has civil consequences and can affect promotion prospects. Retrospective promotion from the date a junior officer was promoted was granted, along with refixation of pension. The Court held that the ratio of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar applied directly to Dr. Saranath's case: the principle that non-communication of ACR entries results in civil consequences was applied to a period well before Dev Dutt was decided.

The Court also read the Railway Board's own communication dated 16 September 1998 — which required communication of “unfavourable remarks” — in light of the law in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh. Those decisions had held that the nomenclature of an entry is not determinative; what matters is its effect. A “Very Good” entry that makes an officer ineligible for promotion, or adversely affects her chances, is effectively adverse and must be communicated. Since Dr. Saranath received “Very Good” ratings across five years yet was not found suitable for empanelment, those entries had an adverse effect on her and ought to have been communicated.

Destruction of Records During Pending Proceedings

A separate and significant strand of the judgment concerns the fate of Dr. Saranath's service records. During the pendency of the civil appeal, the Court directed the Railway Board to produce her ACRs. The Railway Board's affidavit dated 9 February 2024 acknowledged that service records of an officer must be retained until any judicial process is concluded. It then disclosed that Dr. Saranath's records had been “inadvertently” weeded out in 2013 — five years after her superannuation in May 2008. The present proceedings had been filed on 18 April 2009, within a year of her retirement. The Court found that her records ought to have been retained and that their destruction while the appeal was pending warranted an adverse inference against the respondents.

Fractional Points Without Policy Basis

The Court also examined the award of 19.5 points to Dr. Saranath by the Selection Committee. The impugned High Court judgment had referred to this figure and noted that she did not fall within the “grey area” count under the communication dated 22 May 1996. The Court looked at that communication directly. It prescribed whole-number point values: “Outstanding” — five points, “Very Good” — four points, “Good” — three points, “Average” — two points. There was no provision for fractional awards. The respondents explained the fraction as the result of averaging two part-confidential reports written for a particular year, but they did not identify which year or point to any enabling provision in the 1996 communication.

The Court found this explanation unsatisfactory. The Minutes of the Selection Committee showed that Dr. Saranath's assessment for every year from March 2002 to March 2006 was “Very Good”. At four points per year over five years, she ought to have been awarded twenty points. The Court held that her case had to be adjudged on the basis that she had been awarded twenty points, not 19.5.

Cumulative Assessment and Relief

Drawing the three strands together, the Court held that the non-communication of ACRs, the destruction of service records during pending proceedings, and the award of fractional points without any policy basis had to be assessed cumulatively. Taken together, they established that Dr. Saranath had been prejudiced and had not been treated fairly in the matter of her promotion. The Court drew an adverse inference against the respondents in respect of the destroyed records.

On relief, the Court balanced two considerations. It had not been able to peruse the actual service records because they had been destroyed. Given that gap, it declined to direct payment of arrears of salary from the notional date of promotion of the six officers who were promoted in 2006 until Dr. Saranath's superannuation in May 2008. The Court acknowledged the argument based on State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai that “no work no pay” could not be applied as a rule of thumb, but concluded that in the specific facts of this case, refixation of pension in the HAG grade would meet the ends of justice.

Order

The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment dated 22 May 2007 in OA No. 2612/2006 and the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 9 January 2009 in WP(C) No. 4123/2007. Dr. Indira Saranath is held entitled to notional promotion in HAG grade ₹22,400–24,500 (refixed) and to receive pensionary benefits in that grade along with other admissible benefits. The arrears are to be paid within two months of the date of the judgment. The civil appeal is allowed with parties bearing their own costs. The pending interlocutory application is disposed of.