Uncommunicated adverse ACRs and unauthorized bifurcation of annual grading cannot justify denial of higher pay scale.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the grant of a third higher pay scale effective from his date of entitlement under the policy dated January 4, 2016

The respondents denied the benefit, contending that the petitioner secured only 12.5 marks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) assessment, failing to meet the minimum threshold of 13 marks

A clarification filed by the respondents revealed that for the year 2013, the grading was bifurcated into two periods: the first five months (Grade A) and the last seven months (Grade B), resulting in an average score of 2.5 for that year

The petitioner maintained that any adverse or low grading in his ACRs was never communicated to him, an assertion that remained unrefuted by the respondents

1. Whether the non-communication of adverse ACR entries to the petitioner vitiated the decision to deny him the third higher pay scale

2. Whether the respondents' method of bifurcating ACR grading for a single assessment year is legally permissible in the absence of statutory or executive authorization

The Court primarily relied on the precedent established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Datt v. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 775, which establishes that every entry in an ACR (whether "poor," "fair," "average," "good," or "very good") which leads to civil consequences, such as denial of promotion or pay benefits, must be communicated to the employee to satisfy the principles of natural justice

the principle that administrative actions regarding service benefits must be supported by executive instructions or statutory provisions; specifically, an employer cannot unilaterally adopt a "noble method" of assessment, such as bifurcating a single year's assessment, without legal backing

The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the petitioner’s claim that the adverse ACRs were never communicated

Under the Dev Datt doctrine, such non-communication is fatal to the administrative decision as it deprives the employee of the opportunity to represent against the grades

Regarding the scoring for the year 2013, the Court observed that the respondents had split the assessment into two segments (5 months and 7 months) to arrive at a mathematical average of 2.5

The Court held this method to be "impermissible" and "unknown to the settled principle of service jurisprudence," noting that no executive instructions existed to support the bifurcation of a single assessment year

Consequently, since the petitioner was deprived of the benefit based on an incorrect assessment method and uncommunicated ACRs, the denial of the pay scale was held to be unsustainable

It held that the petitioner is entitled to the third higher pay scale effective from January 4, 2016, the date the relevant policy came into force

The Court directed the respondents to calculate and pay the entire arrears and benefits to the petitioner within 90 days from the production of the certified copy of the order