Dr.Om Prakash Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
1 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
rd
ON THE 3 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6186 of 2019
DR. OM PRAKASH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi- Senior Advocate with Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi –
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 be quashed.
(ii) That, it may be held that petitioner is also entitled to get benefit
of 3rd Krammonati by counted his length of service w.e.f. 1985, the
i9ntial date of appointment of petitioner. It may also be held that the
petitioner was rightly granted the benefit of 2nd Krammonati which
now cannot be recovered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
2 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
(iii) That, other relief which is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.”
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially
appointed on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and he stood retired from the
same post and therefore, on completion of 12 years' services benefit of first
kramonnati in the next higher pay-scale was extended to petitioner. It is
submitted that State Government issued a policy dated 24-01-2008 and as per the
said policy benefit of Time Scale Pay was decided to be given on completion of 8
years of services to the Class A and B employees and on completion of 16 years
of services the benefit of 2nd time pay-scale was decided to be given to the said
employees. As per the said policy dated 24.01.2008, the policy was given effect
to with effect from 01-04-2006 and in accordance with the said policy, benefit of
second time scale pay was extended to petitioner on completion of 16 years of
services w.e.f. 01-04-2006 vide order dated 07-03-2009. Thereafter, the second
higher time scale of pay in the pay scale of 12000-16500 was extended to
petitioner with effect from 01.04.2006. Then, petitioner stood retired on attaining
the age of superannuation. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that
without giving any show cause notice to petitioner, without extending him an
opportunity of hearing and without compliance of principles of natural justice,
the respondents issued the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 by which the
respondents changed the date of second time pay scale. It is submitted that in the
impugned order the respondents did not record the reasons also and as the
impugned order has civil consequences, therefore, the opportunity of hearing is
necessary but despite the aforesaid without giving any opportunity of hearing to
petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that at no point of time petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
3 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
received any adverse ACR and it is the settled position that the adverse ACR
which has not been communicated to petitioner(s) on that basis case of
promotion/kramonnati/time pay-scale cannot be rejected/denied.
3. Per contra , it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent/State that for the purpose of grant of time scale pay Departmental
Committee was constituted. The aforesaid committee has taken into
consideration the circulars dated 24.01.2008 and 31.01.2013 and fixed the
benchmark of '10 marks' for grant of first higher pay-scale and benchmark of '13
marks' for grant of 2nd and 3rd time pay-scale and on the basis of aforesaid
benchmarks the case of petitioner was considered and as petitioner did not obtain
the required benchmark, therefore, the benefit of said time pay-scale has been
extended to petitioner with the modified date.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. From perusal of record, it is gathered that petitioner was initially appointed
on the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and he stood retired from the same post
and therefore, on completion of 12 years' services benefit of first kramonnati in
the next higher pay-scale was extended to petitioner. The State Government
issued a policy dated 24-01-2008 and as per the said policy benefit of Time Scale
Pay was decided to be given on completion of 8 years of services to the Class A
and B employees and on completion of 16 years of services the benefit of 2nd
time pay-scale was decided to be given to the said employees. As per the said
policy dated 24.01.2008, the policy was given effect to with effect from 01-04-
2006 and in accordance with the said policy, benefit of second time scale pay
was extended to petitioner on completion of 16 years of services w.e.f. 01-04-
2006 vide order dated 07-03-2009. Thereafter, the second higher time scale of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
4 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
pay in the pay scale of 12000-16500 was extended to petitioner with effect from
01.04.2006. Then, petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation.
Without giving any show cause notice to petitioner, without extending him an
opportunity of hearing and without compliance of principles of natural justice,
the respondents issued the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 by which the
respondents changed the date of second time pay scale. In the impugned order
the respondents did not record the reasons also and as the impugned order has
civil consequences, therefore, the opportunity of hearing is necessary but despite
the aforesaid without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the
impugned order has been passed by the respondents. At no point of time
petitioner has received any adverse ACR and it is the settled position that the
adverse ACR which has not been communicated to petitioner on that basis case
of promotion/kramonnati/time pay-scale cannot be rejected/denied.
6. As per the judgment rendered by 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 is 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 / Kramonnati.
7. The law relating to consideration of uncommunicated ACRs for
promotion/Kramonnati or upgradation is no longer res integra . In the case of
Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368 ,
the Court held that non-inclusion of a government servant in the select list on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
5 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
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/Kramonnati. 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/Promotion/Kramonnati 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
non-communication of entries in the ACRs of a public servant has civil
consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion / Kramonnati 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 co-ordinate 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. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record as also the
decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mehfooz
Ahmad v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & another reported as 2024 (3)
JLJ 17 , the relevant para of which is as follows, it is apparent that
uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into account while considering the case
of an employee for promotion:
“36. The uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into consideration
by the DPC. Under these circumstances, the consideration of ACRs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
6 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
by the DPC which were never communicated to the petitioner, the
declaration by the DPC that the petitioner is not found fit for
promotion is per se illegal. Although the petitioner has been granted
promotion subsequently from a subsequent date but he has sought
promotion from the date when the DPC has considered the case of
other candidates that is from 11/14.08.2016. The DPC has taken a
decision to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Registrar
vide order dated 02.11.2018 considering the fact that none of ACRs
considered by DPC were communicated to the petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and
others reported as (2009) 16 SCC 146 in which it is also held that even if a
person has received good grade, in that case also it is liable to be communicated
to the employee so that he can have a chance to upgrade the aforesaid grade.
Thus, when the facts of the present case are tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
decisions, it is apparent that ACR was not communicated to petitioner by the
respondents.
10. It is observed that petitioner was not communicated any adverse ACR by
the respondents. The record further reflects that last five years’ ACRs were
evaluated in relation to petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that
uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be taken into consideration while
assessing the suitability of an employee for Promotion / Kramonnati/Time Scale
of Pay. Accordingly, any reliance placed on such uncommunicated ACRs is
unsustainable.
11. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered view that present petition deserves to be and
accordingly stands allowed and disposed of in following manner:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26664
7 W P. No. 6186 of 2019
(i) The impugned order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) is hereby
quashed;
(ii) Since the impugned order has already been stayed by this Court
on 25.03.2019, consequently respondents are directed to continue to
grant the benefit of first and second time pay-scale as they have
already granted to petitioner;
(iii) Since the petitioner has already stood retired, the respondents
are directed to revise his PPO/GPO and extend all consequential
benefits, including monetary benefits and arrears arising out of grant
of Kramonnati, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum; and
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order,
failing which the respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 9/8/2026
9:01:26 AM