Repeated non-speaking rejection of an ACR challenge may warrant direct grant of consequential higher pay scales.

The original petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation against adverse remarks in his ACR for the year ending 31 March 1992, which had affected his claim for first and second higher pay scales.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the representation and, if the ACR was toned down or expunged and the petitioner met the prescribed benchmark, consider him for the first higher pay scale from 7 May 1994 and the second from the due date.

The respondents again rejected the representation by order dated 3 March 2014. The petitioner filed the present petition in 2016, his third round of litigation, and died during its pendency; his wife continued the case as his legal representative.

The Review Committee’s minutes were produced before the Court and considered by it.

1. Whether the order dated 3 March 2014 rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the 1992 ACR was legally sustainable, given the Court’s earlier directions and the alleged failure to give reasoned consideration.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the first and second higher pay scales from 7 May 1994 and 9 May 2003, respectively, without a further remand for reconsideration.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, administrative decisions affecting service benefits must be reasoned and must comply with judicial directions.

The Court relied on Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146, for the principle that ACR entries affecting promotion or other service benefits must be communicated, and that non-communication may be arbitrary and violative of Article 14; uncommunicated adverse entries cannot be used to deny promotion or related benefits.

It also relied on Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368, concerning denial of promotion on the basis of an uncommunicated adverse entry.

In light of the prolonged litigation, the Court considered it appropriate to decide the claim itself rather than remand it again.

The Court found that, despite its earlier direction to reconsider the ACR representation, the Review Committee had not adequately dealt with the petitioner’s contentions and had rejected the representation through a non-speaking and unreasoned decision.

It further noted that the dispute had passed through three rounds of litigation, that the petitioner had died during the present proceedings, and that the respondents had shown no fault on his part for the non-consideration of his service-benefit claims.

Applying the principles on adverse ACRs and the need for reasoned decision-making, the Court held that another remand would be inappropriate and granted the claimed pay-scale benefits directly.

It directed the respondents to grant the original petitioner the first higher pay scale from 7 May 1994 and the second from 9 May 2003, and to pay consequential benefits—including revised pay and pensionary benefits, arrears of family pension, salary and other retiral dues—to his wife.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified order; any delay would attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until payment.