Aditya Kumar Mishra (Deleted) Through Lrs Smt Kalpana Mishra vs The Chairman And Managing Director

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
1 WP No. 904 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T G W A L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 12 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 904 of 2016
CNR No.: MPHC030032532016
ADITYA KUMAR MISHRA (DELETED) THROUGH LR SMT
KALPANA MISHRA
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
MPMKVVCL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi – Senior Advocate with Shri Manish Gurjar-
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Narottam Sharma- Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Present petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking the following relief (s):
“(i) That, the order dt. 03-03-2014 (Annexure P/1) may kindly
be quashed.
(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to extent first
higher pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 7-5-94 and thereafter the
second higher pay scale w.e.f. 9-5-2003 and accordingly the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
2 WP No. 904 of 2016
respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrear with the
interest of Rs. 18% Ρ.Α.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost be
awarded.”
2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner that it is the third round of litigation. Earlier also, original
petitioner had submitted WP. No.1119/2000 which has been decided on
28.07.2003. Thereafter, again original petitioner submitted WP.
No.3018/2004 which was decided on 03.12.2013. In the last round of
litigation, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the
representation of original petitioner against the ACR of the year ending
1992 and decide it in accordance with law within 90 days. If ACR is toned
down or expunged and original petitioner meets the bench mark of 3B + 2C,
he shall be considered and given first higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.05.1994.
The respondents were further directed to consider the case of the original
petitioner for grant of second higher pay -scale from due date in accordance
with law. It is submitted that thereafter again vide order dated 03.03.2014,
the case of original petitioner pertaining to representation against the
adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year ending 31.03.1992 was
rejected by non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is submitted that in
response to the order dated 03.12.2013, representation dated 23.12.1992
submitted by original petitioner against the adverse remarks recorded in the
Confidential Report for the year ending 31.03.1992 has again been
considered by the ACR review committee and it has been decided to
maintain the same grade. It is submitted that the review committee has not
considered the representation submitted by original petitioner and only on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
3 WP No. 904 of 2016
the basis of /Note given by the reporting officer, the review committee
Vhi
rejected the representation by non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is
submitted that it is the third round of litigation. Earlier also petitioner had
submitted the writ petition for grant of benefit of first higher pay-scale with
effect from 07.05.1994 and also praying relief for grant of second higher
pay scale with effect from 09.05.2003. It is further submitted that original
petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2014 and expired during the pendency of
present petition on 14.07.2019.
2.1 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits
that it is the third round of litigation and even at earlier point of time also
this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner,
however, despite giving directions twice respondents did not consider the
case of petitioner properly and rejected the same by impugned order dated
03.03.2014. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the action of respondents
is contrary to law down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Private Limited and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and
others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 and he also places reliance on
Mahendra Prasad Agarwal Vs. Arvind Kumar Singh and others
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 302 .
3. Per contra , it is submitted by learned counsel for respondents that the
review committee was properly constituted as per the direction issued by
this Court in the earlier round of litigation and after considering the
representation of petitioner and response upon the representation given by
the reporting officer rightly the representation has been rejected by the
review committee.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
4 WP No. 904 of 2016
4. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From perusal of record, it is gathered that it is the third round of
litigation. Earlier also, original petitioner had submitted WP. No.1119/2000
which has been decided on 28.07.2003. Thereafter, again original petitioner
submitted WP. No.3018/2004 which was decided on 03.12.2013. In the last
round of litigation, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the
representation of original petitioner against the ACR of the year ending
1992 and decide it in accordance with law within 90 days. If ACR is toned
down or expunged and original petitioner meets the bench mark of 3B + 2C,
he shall be considered and given first higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.05.1994.
The respondents were further directed to consider the case of the original
petitioner for grant of second higher pay -scale from due date in accordance
with law. Thereafter again vide order dated 03.03.2014, the case of original
petitioner pertaining to representation against the adverse remarks recorded
in the ACR for the year ending 31.03.1992 was rejected by non-speaking
and unreasoned order. In response to the order dated 03.12.2013,
representation dated 23.12.1992 submitted by original petitioner against the
adverse remarks recorded in the Confidential Report for the year ending
31.03.1992 has again been considered by the ACR review committee and it
has been decided to maintain the same grade. The review committee has not
considered the representation submitted by original petitioner and only on
the basis of /Note given by the reporting officer, the review committee
Vhi
rejected the representation by non-speaking and unreasoned order. It is the
third round of litigation. Earlier also, petitioner had submitted the writ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
5 WP No. 904 of 2016
petition for grant of benefit of first higher pay-scale with effect from
07.05.1994 and also praying relief for grant of second higher pay scale with
effect from 09.05.2003. Original petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2014 and
expired during the pendency of present petition on 14.07.2019.
It is the third round of litigation and even at earlier point of time also
this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner,
however, despite giving directions twice respondents did not consider the
case of petitioner properly and rejected the same by impugned order dated
03.03.2014.
7. Vide order dated 13.02.2026, the respondents were directed to
produce the copy of minutes/proceedings of the ACR Review Committee
and on the basis of direction given by this Court respondents submitted the
review committee report/minutes and as per the minutes the review
committee has only mentioned the points of representation and only
mentioned the note of the reporting officer, however, the review committee
has not considered/dealt with the contention raised by petitioner as well as
reporting officer and by non-speaking and unreasoned order rejected the
representation and upheld the earlier adverse ACR given by committee in
the following manner:
var esa Jh [kVokuh }kjk nh xbZ Vhi esa ;g ys[k fd;k gS fd mijksä
rF;ksa@vk/kkj i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh ,-ds-feJk dfu"B ;a=h dk vH;kosnu
vlR; ,oa e.My }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj ugha gksuk crk;k
tkdj o"kZ 91&92 esa fn, x, fjekdZ dks lgh ,oa mfpr crk;k x;k gSA
Jh ,ådsåfeJk dfu"B ;a=h }kjk çLrqr fd, x, vH;kosnu ,oa Jh
[kVokuh lgk;d ;a=h }kjk nh xbZ Vhi dk lw{erk ls v/;;u djus ds
mijkUr Kkr gksrk gS fd Jh feJk vius vihy vH;kosnu esa vuxZy ckrs
fy[krs jgs gSa muds }kjk vius cpko esa dksbZ rF; ;k ,sls dksbZ nLrkost
çLrqr djus esa vleFkZ jgs gSa] ftlls os çkIr foijhr Vhi ls cp ldrsA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
6 WP No. 904 of 2016
tc fd Jh [kVokuh lgk;d ;a=h ds }kjk Jh feJk }kjk çLrqr vihy
vH;kosnu ij nh xbZ Vhi ds lkFk rF;@lk{; çLrqr fd, x, gSa] ftuls
bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd Jh feJk ds fo#) nh xbZ foijhr Vhi
mfpr gS A
vr% lfefr ds lnL; lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr bl fu"d"kZ
ij igqaps gSa fd deZpkjh dh ekpZ&1992 dh xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa nh xbZ
foijhr Vhi dks ;Fkkor j[ks tkus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA
8. The original petitioner has already left for his heavenly abode during
the pendency of present petition on 14.07.2019. Present petition has been
filed by the original petitioner on 03.02.2016 and earlier also original
petitioner had submitted petition, seeking relief as sought in the present
petition, in the year 2000 and again in the year 2004. This Court vide order
dated 03.12.2013 had directed the respondents in the following manner:
“8. Thus, I am unable to approve the reasons assigned by the
review committee in deciding the representation of the petitioner.
Resultantly, the rejection order on the basis of said note sheet
cannot be permitted to stand. Resultantly, the rejection order
Annexure P/9 dated 25.01.2006 is set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the representation of the petitioner against
the ACR of the year ending 1992 and decide it in accordance with
law within 90 days. If ACR is toned down or expunged and
petitioner meets the bench mark of 3B+2C, he shall be
considered and given first higher pay scale w.e.f. 07.05.1994. The
respondents shall consequentially consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of second higher pay scale from due date in
accordance with law. Petition is partly allowed to the extent
indicated above. No costs.”
and despite issuance of specific directions by this Court to the Review
Committee to decide the representation of petitioner against the ACR of the
year ending 1992, the respondents/Review Committee has rejected the
representation by non-speaking and unreasoned order and therefore it is the
fault on the part of respondents/Review Committee.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
7 WP No. 904 of 2016
9. 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.
10. 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 reported in (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 non-communication 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
8 WP No. 904 of 2016
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.
11. The respondents have not shown any fault on the part of the employee
for non-consideration of his case for promotion/grant of first and second
higher pay-scale. Thus, the non-consideration for promotion/grant of first
and second higher pay-scale of original 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 promotion/grant of first and second higher pay-scale.
12. 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,
held that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into account while
considering the case of an employee for promotion/grant of first and second
higher pay-scale, the relevant para of which is as follows,:
“
36. The uncommunicated ACRs cannot be taken into
consideration by the DPC. Under these circumstances, the
consideration of ACRs 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
9 WP No. 904 of 2016
fact that none of ACRs considered by DPC were communicated
to the petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. 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.
14. In Mahendra Prasad Agarwal (supra) , Hon. Supreme Court has
held as under:
5. Following the above referred direction to reconsider the
respondents claim, the authorities again passed an order on
01.07.2013, yet again reiterating their position as under;
“It is clear from the above that the petitioners have been
teaching in the college in question only after the
implementation of the Government Order dated
21.08.2000/30.08.2000 regarding the ban on creation of
posts and payment from the salary payment account, after
the approval of the University, and their salaries are being
paid by the management from its own sources as per the
rules since the year 2003, 2004 and 2007 under the self-
financed scheme. It is also clear from the above that the
petitioners/management were aware that since the year
2000, there is a policy ban on the State Government giving
any financial assistance in any form for the salaries of
teachers/non-teaching staff and now new courses are being
in new colleges/old aided colleges under the self-financed
scheme and their salaries etc. are to be paid by the
management from its own sources and not by the State
Government. Therefore, now there is no justification for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
10 WP No. 904 of 2016
the petitioners or the management to demand creation of
posts and payment of salary from the salary payment
account.
(6). Therefore, in compliance with the Order dated
06.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Petition No . 1035(S/B)/2011, Dr. Arvind Kumar
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh the joint Representations
dated 25.03.2013 and 26.04.2013 of the Petitioners Dr.
Arvind Kumar Singh and three others are hereby disposed
of.”
6. This order was again challenged in the third writ petition
and yet again the High Court by its order dated 14.07.2023
passed the following order;
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ of certiorari
is issued quashing the order dated 01.07.2013, a copy of
which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The matter is
remitted to the respondent no. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, U.P, Lucknow for passing a fresh order
keeping in view the judgment and order dated 06.03.2013
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No . 1035 (SB) of
2011 as well as the discussions made above.
Let such an order be passed within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
xx xx xx
18 . The present litigation has spanned for over 16 years. It is
therefore necessary to pass the following order;
a) We permit the respondents to file a writ petition against
the order dated 09.05.2025. The said writ petition will be
taken up along with the contempt proceedings pending
before the High Court.
b) The High Court will first take up the writ petition and
pass final orders taking into account its earlier orders
passed on 7.10.2010, 06.03.2013 and 14.07.2013.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
11 WP No. 904 of 2016
c) The High Court shall not remand the matter back to
the authorities for reconsideration as the perspective of
the government is clearly evident .
d) If it is satisfied with the merits of the matter, it shall
issue clear and categorical directions for compliance. If
not, it may dismiss the Writ Petition with clear and simple
reasons.
e) High Court will hear the learned counsels for the State
as well as the writ petitioners before passing reasoned
order.”
15. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the
present case, particularly the fact that the present petition arises out of the
third round of litigation, the original petitioner having first filed a writ
petition in the year 2000, followed by another writ petition in the year 2004
and the present petition on 03.02.2016, and that the litigation has continued
for more than 26 years, this Court also takes note of the unfortunate fact that
the original petitioner passed away during the pendency of the present
petition after fighting a long legal battle. In these circumstances, rather than
remanding the matter for fresh consideration, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow the present petition and accordingly does so in the
following terms:
(i) Impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 03.03.2014 is hereby
quashed;
(ii) Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of first
higher pay-scale to original petitioner with effect from
07.05.1994 and thereafter also extend the benefit of second
higher pay-scale with effect from 09.05.2003;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31622
12 WP No. 904 of 2016
(iii) On compliance, being made, of the direction No.(i)
consequential benefits (such as revise the pay-scale, revise PPO
and GPO, arrears of family pension and arrears of salary and all
other retiral dues) and monetary benefits be paid to petitioner
who is the wife of original petitioner.
(iv) Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order,
failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment is made.
16. Interlocutory application, if any pending, also stands disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 10/16/2026
9:39:12 AM