Uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be used to deny or modify the date of Time Scale Pay benefits.

The petitioners were appointed as Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari and retired from the same post

Under the State Government’s policy dated 24.01.2008, they were granted the benefit of the second higher time scale of pay (pay scale 12000-16500) effective from 01.04.2006 upon completing 16 years of service

Following their retirement, the respondents issued an impugned order dated 17.11.2017, which modified the eligibility date for the second time pay scale to a later date without prior notice or a hearing

The State contended that a Departmental Committee (DPC) refixed the dates because the petitioners failed to meet specific benchmarks derived from their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)

1. Whether the respondents could legally modify the date of grant of time scale pay using uncommunicated adverse ACRs as a basis for denying/deferring benefits

2. Whether the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, asserting that any order with civil consequences must involve an opportunity for a hearing

It relied on Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2010) and Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), which established that non-communication of adverse or "below benchmark" ACR entries is arbitrary and such entries cannot be used to deny promotion or financial upgrades

The Court further cited Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab regarding the necessity of affording an opportunity to represent against adverse entries

Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) to hold that employees cannot be denied consequential benefits for departmental faults where the employee was not at blame

The Court reasoned that the respondents' action of shifting the eligibility date based on uncommunicated ACRs was legally unsustainable.

The respondents failed to provide a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing before passing an order that carried adverse civil consequences

Applying the Dev Dutt and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar precedents, the Court noted that even if a grade is not "adverse" but falls below a required benchmark, it must be communicated so the employee may seek an upgrade

Since the petitioners never received these ACRs, the DPC’s reliance on them to modify the time-scale dates was deemed "per se illegal"

Furthermore, as the delay in proper assessment was solely attributable to the department, the petitioners were entitled to full consequential and monetary benefits despite their retirement

It held that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be used to assess suitability for time-scale pay

The respondents were directed to: (i) continue the benefits of the first and second time pay-scales as originally granted; (ii) revise the petitioners' PPO/GPO; and (iii) pay all arrears and kramonnati benefits with 6% interest per annum within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12%