Delayed communication of adverse ACRs is cured if the employee unsuccessfully challenges them through departmental remedies.

The petitioner, an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh, sought the benefit of the second time scale of pay effective from 31.07.2007

Although the benefit was eventually granted from 01.01.2012, the Departemental Promotion Committee (DPC) had initially denied it from the 2007 date due to an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2006

The petitioner contended that as per a government circular dated 29.11.1984, adverse ACRs not communicated within three months become "non-est" and cannot be used to deny benefits

Procedurally, the petitioner had challenged the adverse ACR through a representation and a subsequent review, both of which were rejected in 2008 and 2015 respectively, but he did not challenge those rejection orders in the present writ petition

1. Whether an adverse ACR communicated beyond the prescribed three-month limit is legally void if the employee has already exhausted administrative remedies against it without success.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the second time scale of pay effective from 31.07.2007 despite having an adverse ACR that attained finality.

the State Government Circular dated 29.11.1984, which mandates the communication of adverse ACRs within three months

Jagat Narayan Tiwari v. State of MP (1988 MPLJ 745), which established that uncommunicated or inordinately delayed adverse entries lose efficacy and should be ignored during promotion or grade-scale considerations

principle of "finality of administrative orders," noting that once an ACR is challenged and the challenge is rejected, the entry attains finality unless specifically set aside by a competent court

The court distinguished the present case from Jagat Narayan Tiwari. While the 1984 circular suggests that delayed ACRs have no effect, the court reasoned that the petitioner had actually received the communication (albeit late) and actively exercised his right to represent and review against it

Because the petitioner's representation was rejected in 2008 and his review was rejected in 2015—and notably, because he did not challenge these specific rejection orders in the current petition—the adverse ACR for 2006 remained valid and "final"

Since the criteria for granting a time scale of pay are identical to those for promotion (requiring a review of the previous 5 years of ACRs), the DPC was justified in finding the petitioner ineligible in 2007 due to the adverse entry

In the absence of a direct challenge to the orders rejecting his representations against the ACR, no relief could be granted. The petition was dismissed as being without merit