Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Omprakash Joshi vs Ayush Department on 25 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28259
1 WP-10191-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 25 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 10191 of 2022
DR. OMPRAKASH JOSHI
Versus
AYUSH DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 13.05.2019, whereby the respondents have rejected the
representation of the petitioner claiming the benefit of time scale pay on the basis
of an adverse uncommunicated ACRs.
Facts of the case are that by order dated 31-03-1973/03-04-1973, the
petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Vaidya Class - I (thereafter, the
nomenclature of the Vaidya was changed as Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari) in the
pay scale of Rs. 350-650. The State Government has issued the Kramonnati/ time
Scale Policies from time to time, by which on completion of 08, 10, 20 year's
services from the date of initial appointment, allowed the benefit of Kramonnati/
time scale to their employees. As per the policies of the State Government from
01.04.1997 the benefit of higher pay scale was given and the pay of the petitioner
was also fixed in the light of the Time Scale policy of the State Government dated
24/01/2008, the respondent no.1 by issuing notification/order dated 28/05/2008 on
completion of 8 years service 1st time scale in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28259
2 WP-10191-2022
and on completion of 16 years services 2nd Time Scale at Rs. 12000-16500 was
allowed in the favour of Ayurvadic Medical Officer. That, in light of the above
mentioned order/notification, the benefit of 2nd Time pay scale was allowed in
favour of the other similarly situated persons, but the benefit of the time scale was
not given to the Petitioner.
Various representations were given by the petitioner as the similar situated
persons have been given the benefits of the abovementioned time pay scale and
also one Dr. Gopal Upadhyay who approached the Hon'ble Court by filing a WP
2318/2014 was also been given the benefits by order dated 12/11/2016. The
petitioner filed a Writ petition seeking the similar benefits and order as the case of
the present petitioner was on similar footing as the present petitioner was also
eligible for the benefits of time pay Scale. That by order dated 08/05/2018 the
petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to consider the case
of the petitioner and an appropriate order be passed due to non-compliance of the
aforementioned order the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition 905/2019. During
the pendency of the Contempt petition, the respondent no. 5 passed an order
rejecting the claim of the petitioner without considering the settled position of law
and without properly considering the ACR of the petitioner.
The said order has been challenged on the ground that the case of the
petitioner was not considered on the ground of ACRs reports of four years from
1998 to 2001. According to the respondents, the petitioner had scored 11 marks
and the required marks for consideration was 13. It is further stated that if the
petitioner would have scored 12 marks then he would have been given 1 mark as
grace by the committee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no ACR was communicated
to the petitioner for the period from 1998 to 2000 and the ACRs were having good
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28259
3 WP-10191-2022
remarks had prejudiced the case of the petitioner for consideration of time scale
pay.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state argued that the petitioner has relied
on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of
India reported in 2008 (8) SCC 725. The said case was dealing with the
uncommunicated adverse ACRS and the respondents have specifically stated in
the reply to para 4 that the petitioner was aware of the aforesaid entries and
therefore, the judgment passed in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) would not render
any assistance to his case.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the stand of
the respondent that only adverse ACR are to be communicated as per the judgment
passed in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) is not correct. It is well-settled law that
every ACR that prejudices or affects the career benefit of an employee have to be
communicated.
The Apex Court in AIR 1979 SC 1622, (1996) 2 SCC 363, 2007 (1) MPJT
2021, (2009) 16 SCC 146 and also the judgments passed by the co-ordinate bench
of this Court in Havildar Gambhir Singh Chahar Vs. Union of India and Ors
reported in 2007 (2) MPHT 238, wherein it has been held that in the case of non-
communication, that remark has to be eschewed from consideration when directing
reconsideration of his case for promotion.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The case of the
petitioner shall be reconsidered by the committee ignoring the adverse ACRs,
which were not communicated to the petitioner and in case if the petitioner is
found to be fit in the aforesaid benefits, the same shall be granted to the petitioner
in accordance with the law from the date of benefit granted to the similarly situated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28259
4 WP-10191-2022
employees alongwith 6% interest from the date it became due till the same is paid.
Since the petitioner has completed the case of superannuation during the
pendency of the petition, the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner shall
be revised and revised PPO shall be issued. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within the period of 60 days from the date of filing of a copy of the
order passed today.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
