Achievement of prescribed merit criteria overrides isolated adverse remarks in considerations for time-bound pay scale benefits.

The petitioner, appointed as Subedar in 1974 and subsequently promoted to Additional Superintendent of Police, retired on 30/04/2009.

Although a 1998 Tribunal order granted him seniority in the gradation list, he was denied timely senior pay scales.

The petitioner sought the benefit of senior scale, selection grade, and super selection grade from the dates his juniors received them (1995, 1999, and 2006 respectively).

The State rejected his representation in 2013, citing an adverse ACR remark from 1994 ("Kha-Sansuchit") which remained unexpunged.

The State's own records (Annexure R-1) revealed a marking system for ACRs (K+=4, K=3, Kh=2, G=1) where the petitioner scored 13 marks against a minimum requirement of 10.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the petitioner the benefits of senior scale, selection grade, and super selection grade from the date of his juniors despite the petitioner meeting the minimum qualifying marks in ACR evaluations.

The court applied the principle of parity in service benefits and the "criteria-based evaluation" rule for promotions and pay scales.

departmental marking scheme for Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) where specific grades (K+, K, Kh, G) are assigned numerical values (4, 3, 2, 1).

The core legal principle holds that once an employee fulfills the prescribed objective criteria (minimum marks) for a benefit, an adverse entry that does not reduce the score below the threshold cannot be used to deny benefits already extended to juniors.

The Court examined the evaluation table provided in Annexure R-1, which showed that for the five-year period (1990–1994), the petitioner secured a total of 13 marks.

The Court noted that the minimum qualifying marks set by the department were 10.

While the State argued that the "Kha" (adverse) remark from 1994 justified the denial, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner's total score (13) exceeded the minimum requirement (10), he effectively fulfilled the prescribed criteria.

Consequently, the Court held that the adverse entry did not outweigh the overall assessment, and thus, the denial of benefits at par with his juniors was unsustainable in law.

It directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the senior scale w.e.f. 01/07/1995, selection grade w.e.f. 01/07/1999, and super selection grade w.e.f. 01/01/2006, along with a revision of pay scale and all consequential retiral benefits.

The Court ordered the exercise to be completed within three months, awarding 6% interest per annum on arrears, rising to 12% in case of default.