Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. N.S. Niranjan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 19 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
1 WP.No. 6831 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 6831 of 2016
DR. N.S. NIRANJAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Singh - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon - learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
___________________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 13.11.2025
Pronounced on : 19.11.2025
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):-
"i) That, the order impugned dated 07.09.2016 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Respondent No.3 and 4 may kindly be quashed with a
further direction to the respondents not to change the dates for grant
the benefits to the petitioner which have been extended after
enforcement of 6th pay commission.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
ii) That, the respondents be further directed not to make any
recovery in pursuance to impugned order Annexure- P/1, in the
interest of justice.
iii) That, any other relief which is suitable in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner including the
costs throughout may also be granted."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially
appointed as Assistant Professor on Adhoc basis on 13.12.1985. Thereafter,
petitioner was regularized in services vide order dated 2.12.1998 (Annexure P/2)
w.e.f. 20.2.1991. The service condition of the petitioner is governed under the
Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiatge Branch) Recruitment Rules,
1990, wherein two up-gradation viz. (i) Senior Pay-scale and (ii) Selection Grade
Pay-scale are provided as under:
"(A) for Section Pay-scale- Asstt.
Professor/Librarian/Sports Officer will be placed
in senior pay-scale of Rs.3000-5000 if (A) for
Senior Pay-scale-Asstt. Professor/ Librarian/
Sports he/she has (1) completed 8 years of service
after regular appointment, or completed 5 years or
7 years of service in case of Ph.D. or M.Phil
degree holders, respectively, (ii) participated in
one orientation and one refresher course/ summer
institutes, each of approximately 4 weeks duration
or remained associated with appropriate
continuing education programmes, or comparable
quality as ma be specified by UGC; and (iii)
consistently satisfactory performance appraisal
report.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
(B) for Selection Grade Pay-scale - Every
Assistant Professor/Sports Officer/ Librarian
working in senior pay-scale shall be eligible for
placement in the Selection Grade Pay-scale 3700-
5700, provided he/she (1) has completed 8 years
of service in the senior scale. The condition of 8
years shall be relaxed in case of officers who have
completed atleast 16 years and for Ph.D. and
M.Phil holders 13 and 15 years respectively of
service on the post of Asstt. Professor/ Sports
Officer/ Librarian, (ii) after posting in the senior
scale has participated in two refreshers courses/
sunimer institutes each of approximately 4 weeks
duration, has remained associate with appropriate
continuing education progranimer equivalent to
standards approved by UGC; anu (iii) has
consistently good performance appraisal reports. "
It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that vide order
dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure - P/3) the Senior Grade Pay Scale was extended
w.e.f. 01.04.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000 corresponding Pay Scale Rs.
1000-15200/-. It is further submitted that similarly the Selection Grade was
extended w.e.f. 01.04.2002 vide order dated 26.07.2005 (Annexure P/4) and
extended the Pay Scale of Rs.3700-5700 (corresponding Pay Scale of Rs.12000 -
18300). On account of completion of 3 years in the pay scale w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and
by virtue of 7th Pay Commission granted the benefit of revised pay scale w.e.f.
1.01.2006 (dated 16.04.2010 Annexure P/7), wherein it is stipulated that -
'' 4. पपुररानने वनेतनमरान रूपयने 12000-420-18300 ममें ततीन वरर्ष सने अधधिक
सने सनेवरा पपूरर्ष करनने पर पपुनररीकक्षित वनेतनमरान ममें 37400-67000+ अकरादधमक
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
गनेड वनेतन 9000 रूपयने ममें ससरानन / धनधिरार्षरर ककी परात्रतरा हहोगती तसरा इनकरा
पदनराम सह पराधयरापक हहोगरा। ''
Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that for granting the benefit
of 4th pay band 3 years in the pay scale of Rs.12000-420-18300 (Revised Pay
Scale Rs.37400-67000+ Grade Pay 9000) is essential. It is further submitted that
the aforesaid aspect, i.e. completion of three years in the Pay Scale, has not been
considered by the respondents. They have declined to grant the benefit of the 4th
Pay Band from the date of eligibility, relying upon the adverse entries in the
ACRs for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2007, and 2008, which is
unsustainable. It is further submitted that it is second round of litigation. Earlier
round of litigation this Court had already considered the case of petitioner vide
order dated 5.5.2015 passed in W.P. No. 9041/2013 and held that "the reasons
assigned for cancelling the selection grad or are on the very first look untenable.
The reasons assigned by the impugned order is that the ACR of the petitioner for
the appraisal years 2005, 2007, 2008 reflect ordinary/below average
performance." It is further submitted that this Court had already held that "for
cancelling an order which was passed w.e.f. 1.04.2002 the event of adverse
remarks during the subsequent years i.e. (2005, 2007 and 2008) are being cited
for cancelling the benefit of selection grade granted earlier" and on aforesaid
facts and grounds this Court has mentioned that impugned order dated 5.5.2015
passed in W.P. No.1904/2013 is based on untenable reason which cannot stand
the test of law and this Court set aside the order dated 18.12.2013. It is further
submitted that the State Government has preferred writ appeal No.261/2015
which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2015. It is further submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
thereafter, again on 7.9.2016, respondents had issued order without giving any
opportunity of being heard to petitioner and respondent reconsidered the issues
and extended the 4th Pay Band w.e.f. 1.4.2010 instead of 1.1.2006 by relying on
the ACRs for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2007 and 2008. It is further
submitted that petitioner had specifically mentioned that the ACRs for the years
1994, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2007 and 2008 are un-communicated ACRs and specific
averment has been mentioned in para-5.4, 5.6. and 5.8 and para-3 of rejoinder. It
is further submitted that this fact has not been denied or disputed by the
respondents in their return. It is further submitted that as per the Sixth Pay
Commission, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 4 th Pay Commission
w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The ACRs have no relevance as per Sixth Pay Commission. It is
further submitted that respondent had enforced the Sixth Pay Commission by
notification dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure P/7). It is further submitted that as per
sub-clause (4) of clause 2 and clause 4, after completing three years in selection
grade, the petitioner is entitled 4th Pay Band. It is further submitted that writ
Court was extended liberty to the State Government to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law. Thereafter, respondent had called the petitioner on
25.4.2016 and after hearing the petitioner, order dated 28.9.2016 has been passed
by respondent which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.
No.7147/2016. It is further submitted that the ACRs have no relevance for the
purpose of grant of 4th Pay Band and that the date of eligibility has been changed
w.e.f. 01.04.2010 instead of 01.01.2006. It is submitted that the said change has
been made without issuing any show-cause notice and without affording any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural
justice.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the
ACRs of the relevant years of the petitioner were not proper and were not up to
the mark as required for consideration in terms of the prescribed criteria for grant
of senior grade pay and selection grade pay scale. It is further submitted that in
order to claim the benefit of 4th Pay Band, the ACRs ought to be of 'Good' grade.
Since the ACR for the year 2005 was graded as 'D', the case of the petitioner was
rightly rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it is gathered that for granting benefit of 4 th pay
band, 3 years in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-420-18,300 (Revised Pay Scale
Rs.37,400-67,000+ Grade Pay 9,000) is essential. Completion of three years in
the said Pay-Scale has not been considered by the respondents. This Court has
already held that for cancelling an order which was passed w.e.f. 1.04.2002 the
event of adverse remarks during the subsequent years i.e. (2005, 2007 and 2008)
are being cited for cancelling the benefit of selection grade granted earlier is
based on untenable reason which cannot stand the test of law and this Court set
aside the order dated 18.12.2013. Respondents had issued an order without
giving any opportunity of being heard to petitioner and extended 4 th Pay Band
w.e.f. 1.4.2010 instead of 1.1.2006 by relying on the ACRs for the years 1994,
1995, 1996, 2005, 2007 and 2008 which are un-communicated ACRs and
specific averment has been made in para-5.4., 5.6 and 5.8 and para-3 of rejoinder
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
in that behalf. This fact has neither been denied nor disputed by respondents in
their return.
7. Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of 4 th Pay Commission w.e.f.
1.1.2006. The ACRs have no relevance as per Sixth Pay Commission. As per
sub-clause (4) of Clause-2 and Clause-4, after completing three years in selection
grade, petitioner is entitled to receive 4th Pay Band. The ACRs have no relevance
for the purpose of grant of 4th Pay Band and the date of eligibility has been
changed w.e.f. 01.04.2010 instead of 01.01.2006. The said change has been made
by the respondents authorities without issuing any show-cause notice and without
affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, thereby violating the principle
of natural justice and extended 4th Pay Band w.e.f. 1.4.2010 instead of
1.1.2006 by relying on the ACRs for the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2007 and
2008 which are un-communicated ACRs.
8. As per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh
Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 959, if
the entry of adverse ACR has not been communicated to the delinquent, such
non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725. It is
settled law that uncommunicated adverse ACRS cannot be taken into
consideration for promotion.
9. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for promotion
or upgradation is no longer res integra. In the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
State of Punjab & Ors (1979) 2 SCC 368, the court held that the non-inclusion
of a government servant in the select list on account of adverse entry which was
not communicated and the opportunity was not afforded to submit representation,
cannot be made basis for denial of the promotion. In the case of Kaluram
Patidar Vs. State of MP & Ors WP No.11064/2010 decided on 25.8.2011 , this
court relying on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit
Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 146 came to the conclusion
that the ACRs which have been resulted in denial of the selection grade cannot be
considered to be a ground for denying the claim to an employee. In the case of
Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, it has been held that
noncommunication of entries in the ACRS of a public servant has civil
consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion or get other
benefits. Such non-communication of adverse ACRS would be arbitrary and
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same has been followed
by a coordinate Bench in the case of Rajendra Kumar Verma vs. State of M.P.
2017(1) MPLJ 391. The division bench of this court in the case Higher
Education Department Vs. Dr.(Smt) Kavita Bundela WA No.421/2017
decided on 23.10.2017 has taken a similar view.
10. The respondents have not shown any fault of the employee for non
consideration of his case. Thus, the non-consideration of the petitioner at the
relevant time is solely attributable to the department and there is no fault on the
part of the employee therefore, the employee cannot be denied the consequential
benefits. In the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010,
the Apex Court held that where the employee was not at fault and the department
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29761
deprived him to perform the promotional post, the principle of "No work no pay"
would not be applicable. The said principle has been followed by the Apex Court
in the subsequent judgment in the case of State of Kerala Vs. E.K.Bhaskaran
Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524, followed by the Division Bench of this court in the case
of C.B.Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2015(2) MPHT 132. A similar view
has been taken by Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WA
No.1287/2017 (State of MP and Ors Vs. Jham Singh Pandre) decided on
02.01.2018.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and law, the present petition is allowed and
impugned order dated 7.9.2016 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. Accordingly,
respondents are directed to extend the benefit of 4 th Pay Band w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to
petitioner along with all consequential benefits within a period three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.
13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, are also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
