Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Chhotelal Prajapati vs Higher Education Department on 18 August, 2025
1 WP-15842-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15842 of 2019
DR. CHHOTELAL PRAJAPATI
Versus
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate through V.C. with Shri Akash Choudhary
- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Sahu - Panel Lawyer for the respondent - State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-7 dated
30.09.2015, whereby the case of the petitioner for preponement of senior and
Selection Grade Pay Scales and Fourth Pay Band has been rejected on the
ground that the ACRs of the petitioner for the year ending 1990 and 1992 are
not available and the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003 are
"Average" and therefore, the dates of entitlement to which the petitioner was
earlier found eligible by the State Government is to be maintained and the
entitlement of Senior Scale w.e.f. 01.04.2002, Selection Grade w.e.f.
01.04.2007 and Fourth Pay Band w.e.f. 01.04.2010 has to be maintained as it
is.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular
ground that the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003, which are
2 WP-15842-2019
"Average" were never communicated to the petitioner and therefore, they
could not be read to disadvantage of the petitioner in postponing his right to
receive Senior Pay Scale, Selection Pay Scale and consequential benefits of
Fourth Pay Band.
3. The State Government in paragraph 9 of the reply has admitted that
the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003 were not communicated
to the petitioner, because as per the policy of the General Administration
Department vide Circular dated 25.05.1982 and 20.11.1990 only "Adverse"
or "Poor" Grade ACRs are required to be communicated and "Average"
Grade ACRs are not required to be communicated. It is further contended in
para 10 of the reply that even as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 : AIR
2008 SC 2513 only "Good" ACRs are required to be communicated and
"Average" ACRs are not required to be communicated.
4. In the present case, it is undisputed that the ACRs of four years that
is of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003 were "Average" and this formed
the basis of postponement of benefits of Senior Pay Scale, Selection Pay
Scale and Fourth Pay Band to the petitioner and the saif ACRs were never
communicated to the petitioner.
5. The aforesaid question was considered by a Single Bench of this
Court, in the case of Kaluram Patidar vs State of M.P. and others (W.P.
No.11064 of 2010) decided at Indore Bench. Subsequently, another Single
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr Jyoti Vaidya vs Higher Education
Department (W.P. No.4305 of 2018) has allowed similar petition by holding
3 WP-15842-2019
that uncommunicated Average ACRs are to be ignored and cannot be read
for postponing the benefits.
6. The aforesaid order in the case of Jyoti Vaidya (supra) has been
confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.310 of 2019 (State of M.P.
VS. Dr. Jyoti Vaidya) vide order dated 01.03.2019 in the following manner
:-
"Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, Govt. Advocate for appellants
/State.
Shri L.C. Patne, Advocate for the respondent.
Heard.
2. The appellant - State of M.P. before this court through its
functionaries is aggrieved by order dated 7.12.2018, passed
in W.P.No.4305/2018(s) by the learned Single Judge has
preferred a writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal)
Adhiniyam, 2005.
3. The facts of the case reveal that Dr. Smt. Jyoti Vaidya, the
respondent in the present writ appeal has approached this
court challenging the validity and legality of the order dated
7.9.2016 and 4.1.2018 (Annexures P/8 and P/15) of the writ
petition. She was denied the benefit of Senior Grade Pay
Scale and the benefit of Pay Band - IV from the date she was
entitled and the only reason assigned was that her ACR's
were average.
4. Undisputedly, none of the average ACR was
communicated to the sole respondent - Smt. Jyoti Vaidya.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length
the learned Single Judge has held as under :-
"2. Petitioner, an Assistant Professor has challenged the
legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated
07.09.2016 (Annexure P-8) and 04.01.2018 (Annexure
P-15) passed by the respondents by the instant petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Respondent no.2 has denied the benefit of Senior
Grade Pay Scale Rs. 3000-5000(revised to Rs. 10,000-
15200) from 24.12.1998 to 01.04.2005, benefit of
Selection Grade Pay Scale Rs.3700-5700(revised to
Rs.12000-18300) from 24.12.2009 to 01.04.2010 and
benefit of Pay Band-IV in the Pay Scale Rs. 37400-
67000+ AGP Rs 9000 from 24.12.2012 to 01.04.2013
on the ground that ACR's of petitioner in the years
1992-1996,1999 and 2000 are not up to the benchmark.
4. On notice, respondents/State has submitted counter
affidavit, inter-alia contending that the ACRs of the
petitioner since the year 1990 till the year 2000 have
4 WP-15842-2019
constantly been 'average' in nature and as she did not
touch the 'benchmark', therefore, she has been rightly
denied the benefits as claimed by her from the dates as
aforesaid.
5. Shri Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner has
made the following submissions:
(i) ACR's of the years in which petitioner was
awarded 'average' grading could not have been
made the basis for denial of benefit of pay scales
from the due dates since those gradings were never
communicated to her enabling her to file
representations against the same.
(ii) under similar facts and circumstances, the co-
ordinate Bench decided writ petition no.
15206/2008 by order dated 30.11.2009 (Dr. M.K.
Richariya Vs. State of M.P.) which was affirmed
by the Division Bench in W.A . No. 310/2011 on
24.08.2011.
(iii) further, W.P. No. 11064/2010(S) (Kaluram
Patidar Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) was decided on
25.08.2011 by relying upon the judgment rendered
in Dr. M.K. Richariya's case(supra), wherein it has
been ruled that un-communicated ACR's coming
in the way of petitioner in the matter of grant of
payscale from due dates, could not have been
acted upon to justify denial. The Court has further
directed that those ACRs be ignored while
considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of
benefit of payscales on due dates. The controversy
involved in this case is also similar thereto. Hence,
the order and directions issued thereunder shall
apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the case in
hand.
(iv) learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to
the Three Judge Bench judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sukhdev
Singh Vs. Union of India] reported in (2013) 9
SCC 566, approving the two Judge Bench
judgment rendered in the case of Devdutt Vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC
725 , to contend that even if the ACR of a given
period may not be adverse and irrespective of
nature of remark, if such remarks come in the way
of grant of higher payscale, then the same are to be
treated as 'adverse' and unless, the same is
communicated to the delinquent with an
opportunity to make representation against the
same, such remark cannot be acted upon.
(v) it is further submitted that in the aforesaid two
judgments(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
also approved that; (i)whether remark is 'poor',
5 WP-15842-2019
'fair', 'average', 'good' or 'very good', every
entry in the ACR may be communicated to the
delinquent giving him/her an opportunity to
improve his/her work and give better results, (ii) to
afford him/her opportunity to make representation
for upgradation and (iii) communication of every
entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording
remarks in the service book of the public servant.
As such, the petitioner is entitled for grant of
benefit of Senior Grade Pay Scale Rs. 10000-
15200, Selection Grade Pay Scale Rs. 12000-
18300 and the benefit of Pay Band-IV i.e.
placement in the payscale of Rs. 37400- 67000+Rs
9000 AGP from the due dates.
6. Per contra, Shri Gajankush, learned Dy. Advocate General
tried to controvert the aforesaid contentions and attempted to
distinguish the judgments cited with the contention that in
the instant case, petitioner has all along been graded as
'average' since the year 1990 till the year 2000, unlike cases
cited above decided by Co-ordinate Bench wherein only two
or three remarks were 'average'. Under such circumstances,
if a person since long span of period has been rated
'average', such grading by itself can be categorized as
'adverse' only for the reason that petitioner could not satisfy
the 'benchmark' for grant of benefits of pay scale from due
dates as claimed. On the same touchstone, petitioner's case is
sought to be distinguished from the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh(supra) and
Devdutt(supra).
7. Heard.
8. There is no cavil of doubt that 'every entry in the ACR of
a public servant' is required to be communicated as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devdutt's case
(supra). But in Sukhdev Singh's case(supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has approved the said judgment with further
justification as contained in para 8 thereof:
8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every
entry in ACR of a public servant must be
communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is
legally sound and helps in achieving three fold
objectives. First, the communication of every entry in
the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work
harder and achieve more that helps him in improving
his working and give better results. Second and equally
important, on being made aware of the entry in the
ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the
same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to
make representation for upgradation of the remarks
entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every
entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the
remarks relating to a public servant and the system
6 WP-15842-2019
becomes more conforming to the principles of natural
justice. We accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR
poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be
communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9. Under such circumstances, the contentions advanced by
learned Dy. Advocate General pales into insignificance and
of no consequence.
10. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders dated 07.09.2016 & 04.01.2018 vide
Annexure P-8 and P-15 respectively in W.P. No.
4305/2018(S) and the impugned orders in the connected writ
petitions are hereby quashed with the following directions:
(i) each of the petitioner shall submit a detailed
representation within fifteen days from today alongwith
a certified copy of the order;
(ii) the concerned authorities shall call for the relevant
record from the concerned respondents and scrutinize
the cases of petitioners individually;
(iii) respondents are further directed to grant the
benefits of Senior Grade pay scale w.e.f. 21.11.1996,
Selection Grade Pay Scale w.e.f. 21.11.1999 and Pay
Band-IV w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and fix the pay of petitioner
in W.P. No. 4305/2018(S) alongwith arrears thereof
alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.in accordance with law.
Likewise, the petitioners in other connected petitions
are entitled for the benefits of Senior Grade Pay Scale,
Selection Grade Pay Scale and Pay Band IV w.e.f. the
due dates alongwith 12% interest in accordance with
law.(iv) the entire exercise shall be concluded by the
respondents within 3 months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order passed today.
A copy of this order be placed in all the other connected
cases.
6. The learned Single Judge has placed the reliance upon the
judgment delivered in identical circumstances in the case of
Ddr. M.K. Richariya V/s. State of M.P. passed in
W.P.No.15206/2008, decided on 30.11.2009. The aforesaid
case was again taken in scrutiny by the Division Bench and
the Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the
State Government by an order dated 24.8.2011, passed in
W.A.No.310/2011. In another matter, i.e., in
W.P.No.11064/2010(s) (Kaluram Patidar V/s. State of M.P.
& Ors.) again a similar view has been taken and it has been
held that uncommunicated ACR's, coming in the way of an
employee in the matter of grant of pay - scale from due dates
cannot be looked into. Not only this, again a similar view has
been taken by the Division Bench of this court in the case of
State of M.P. & 2 Ors. V/s. Smt. Kavita Bundela, passed in
W.A.No.7978/2016(s), decided on 23.10.2017.
7. In light of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ
7 WP-15842-2019
petition. Undisputedly, the ACR's have never been
communicated to the petitioner and they have been looked
into while denying the benefit to the respondent of
upgradation / grant of higher pay - scale from the due date.
8. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
9. The admission is declined."
7. The present case is also squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment
and the present petitioner is also similarly situated.
8. Therefore, the present petition is also allowed in similar terms and
the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant
of Senior Grade, Selection Grade and Fourth Pay Band by ignoring the
uncommunicated Average ACRs for the year ending years 1996, 1998, 1999
and 2003. It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to consider
any other communicated ACRs of the preceding year, if available.
9. Let the consideration be made within 60 days from communication
of this order. If the petitioner is found entitled to benefits, then the same shall
be extended to the petitioner within a further period of 60 days. Petition is
allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
