Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Virendra Prakash vs The State Of M.P. on 29 October, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27252
1 WP-1266-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1266 of 2007
DR.VIRENDRA PRAKASH
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - learned Deputy Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order dated 23.1.2007 Annexure P/1 be quashed.
(ii) That, the petitioner be directed to be extended benefit of senior
scale inthe grad of Rs.10000-15200/- w.e.f. 1.7.1998 on
completion of four years in service being Ph.D holder.
(iii) That, other relief doing justice including cost be awarded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
initially appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Economics) with effect
from 01.07.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed
through the Public Service Commission (PSC) and upon completion of two-
years' probation period, he was confirmed on the post vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27252
2 WP-1266-2007
11.11.1998. Subsequently, the Government formulated a policy with a view
to extending the benefit of the senior scale on completion of four years of
service. Accordingly, having completed four years of satisfactory service on
01.07.1998, the petitioner became entitled to the grant of the senior scale
under the said time-bound pay scheme. It is further submitted that other
employees similarly situated to the petitioner were extended the benefit of
the pay scale of Rs10,000-15,200/- but the same has not been extended to
the present petitioner till date. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed
representation before the concerned authority, which was rejected by the
impugned order dated 23.01.2007 on the ground that the annual confidential
report (ACR) of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. It is further
submitted that no adverse entry in the service record was ever
communicated to the petitioner. Had there been any adverse entry in service
record, then the same at least ought to have been communicated to the
petitioner. In the absence whereof, the benefit ought not to have been denied
to petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the
prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the
petitioner's case has been considered by the departmental promotion
committee. Petitioner's case was also under the zone of consideration.
However, the petitioner was not found fit and therefore, the benefit could not
have been extended to the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the
present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27252
3 WP-1266-2007
5. Admittedly, the juniors of the petitioner and other similarly situated
persons were granted the benefit of the Senior Scale in the grade of Rs.
10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 1.7.1998 on completion of four years of service,
being Ph.D. holders, and the case of the petitioner has been considered by the
respondents in the following manner:-
'' क अ वी सिमित क अनुशंसानुसार आपके गोपनीय
अिभलेख वांिछत ण
े ी के नह ं पाए जाने के आधार पर व र ण
े ी
वेतनमान म थानन कया जाना संभव नह ं है ।''
6. 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.
7. 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27252
4 WP-1266-2007
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.
8. The respondents have not shown any fault on the part of the
employee for non-consideration of his case for the benefit of the senior scale,
which has been granted to his juniors or other similarly situated persons.
Thus, the non-consideration for Senior Scale 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 after consideration. 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 deprived him to perform the
promotional post, the principle of "No work no pay" would not be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27252
5 WP-1266-2007
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
o f 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and law, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.1.2007 and 7.12.2005 are hereby
quashed. The respondents/concerned authorities are directed to extend the
benefit of the senior scale to petitioner being a Ph.D. holder in the pay grade
of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- w.e.f. 1.7.1998, on completion of four years of
service and to grant all consequential benefits to him within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad
