Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hariom Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12012
1 WP-21520-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21520 of 2021
HARIOM VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel- GA for the respondnets/State.
ORDER
The petitioner initially filed this writ petition praying for a direction to
the respondents to grant him benefit of 3rd time pay-scale on completion of
11 years of service in the year 2018.
2. The respondents filed return bringing on record the order dated
19/4/2022, whereby, the petitioner's claim for grant of 3rd time pay-scale
was considered and declined on the ground that the petitioner could not
secure a minimum benchmarks of 10 marks based upon ACRs of previous
five years. The petitioner has accordingly, challenged the order dated
19/4/2022 by amending the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his entitlement for
grant of 3rd time pay-scale is from year 2018, and therefore, the ACRs for
the period from year 2013 to year 2017 were considered by the respondents.
Since the ACRs for the year 2015 and year 2016 were not communicated to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12012
2 WP-21520-2021
the petitioner, the same were liable to be ignored and two ACRs preceding
2013 i.e. ACRs of year 2011 and 2012 were required to be considered. He
submitted that non-communication of ACRs for the year 2015 and year 2016
has deprived him of his right to make representation for upgradation of his
ACRs. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Apex
Court decisions in the cases of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India
and Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146 and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan Vs. Union of
India and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 640. He therefore, submits that the matter
needs to be remanded to the authorities for considering the petitioner's claim
for grant of 3rd time pay-scale taking into account the ACRs for the year
2011 and year 2012 in place of ACRs for the year 2015 and year 2016.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer
made by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner could not satisfy the
criteria for grant of 3rd time pay-scale as laid down by the concerned
Committee, and therefore, he is rightly denied the benefit of grant of 3rd time
pay-scale. Regarding non-communication of ACRs, learned counsel for the
State referred paragraph no. 6 of the additional return filed on behalf of
respondents and submitted that since the petitioner had already acquired the
copy of ACRs under Right to Information Act, the non-communication of
ACRs is inconsequential.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of
India and Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 146 held that uncommunicated adverse ACRs
cannot be relied upon. It held in para 8 as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12012
3 WP-21520-2021
"8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very
good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly
the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The
entry of "good" should have been communicated to him as he was
having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances,
in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual
confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil,
judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces),
it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of
promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non-
communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated
in the abovereferred decision (Dev Dutt case [(2008) 8 SCC 725 :
(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771 : (2008) 7 Scale 403] , SCC p. 738, para
41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at
all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken
into consideration for being considered for promotion to the
higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had
ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him."
7. Admittedly, the ACRs for the year 2013 to year 2017 were
considered by the Committee while considering the petitioner's claim for
grant of 3rd time pay-scale. It is not in dispute that the ACRs for the year
2015 and year 2016 were not communicated to the petitioner. The
submission of respondents that copy of ACRs were secured by the petitioner
under Right to Information Act, and therefore, non-communication of the
ACRs, is inconsequential, is not acceptable for the reason that the ACRs are
required to be communicated promptly, so as to enable the incumbent to
make a representation, if he wants upgradation of the ACRs. It is thus, the
obligation of the employer to communicate ACRs to the concerned
employee. Further, in the instant case, the copy of the ACRs are received by
the petitioner under Right to Information Act on 6/9/2021. However, by that
time, his claim was already considered by the respondents. Thus, it is held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12012
4 WP-21520-2021
that the non-communication of the ACRs for the year 2015 and year 2016
has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.
8. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon Apex Court judgment in
the case of Abhijit Ghose & Rukhsana Shaheen Khan (supra) to say that
ACRs of 2015 & 2016 are required to be ignored and ACRs for the year
2011 & 2012 needs to be considered. However, both the judgments are not
an authority on the issue. On the other hand, the Apex Court in the case of
Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 723 issued following
directions:-
"43. We are informed that the appellant has already retired from
service. However, if his representation for upgradation of the
"good" entry is allowed, he may benefit in his pension and get
some arrears. Hence we direct that the "good" entry of 1993-1994
be communicated to the appellant forthwith and he should be
permitted to make a representation against the same praying for its
upgradation. If the upgradation is allowed, the appellant should be
considered forthwith for promotion as Superintending Engineer
retrospectively and if he is promoted he will get the benefit of
higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay along with 8%
per annum interest.
44. We, therefore, direct that the "good" entry be communicated
to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the
appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against
the said entry within two months thereafter and the said
representation will be decided within two months thereafter. If his
entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion
retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for
promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with
arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of
payment."
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19/4/2022 is quashed.
Respondents are directed to communicate the adverse ACRs for the year
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12012
5 WP-21520-2021
2015 and year 2016 to the petitioner and the petitioner is granted liberty to
make representation for upgradation of the aforesaid ACRs. The respondents
shall thereupon, consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable
orders. In case, the ACRs for the year 2015 and year 2016 are upgraded, the
petitioner's claim for grant of 3rd time pay-scale shall be reconsidered by the
authorities.
10.The respondents are directed to finalize the representation made by
the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of making such
representation by the petitioner and in case, the ACRs are upgraded,
necessary benefit be conferred upon the petitioner within the same period of
90 days.
11. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
