Uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot justify denial or withdrawal of time-scale pay benefits.

The petitioner, an Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, was initially granted the first Kramonnati benefit after completing 12 years of service.

Under the State Government’s policy dated 24 January 2008, time-scale benefits were to be granted to Class A and B employees after 8 and 16 years of service respectively, with effect from 1 April 2006.

The petitioner was accordingly granted the second time-scale benefit with effect from 1 April 2006 by order dated 7 March 2009, in the pay scale of ₹12,000–16,500, and subsequently retired on superannuation.

In 2019, the respondents issued an order altering the date of the petitioner’s second time-scale benefit without issuing a show-cause notice, providing an opportunity of hearing, or recording reasons.

The State contended that a Departmental Committee had applied benchmarks of 10 marks for the first higher pay scale and 13 marks for the second and third time scales, and that the petitioner had not achieved the prescribed benchmark.

The petitioner maintained that no adverse ACR had ever been communicated to him and that such uncommunicated ACRs could not be relied upon to deny or postpone Kramonnati/time-scale benefits.

1. Whether the respondents could alter the petitioner’s previously granted second time-scale benefit without issuing notice, granting an opportunity of hearing, and recording reasons.

2. Whether uncommunicated adverse ACRs could be relied upon to deny or defer the petitioner’s Kramonnati/time-scale benefits.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to continuation of the first and second time-scale benefits already granted, together with consequential retiral and monetary benefits.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to judicially review administrative action having civil consequences.

The principles of natural justice require that an adverse administrative order affecting a person’s monetary or service rights be preceded by notice and an opportunity of hearing, and be supported by reasons.

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 / (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 959, for the rule that uncommunicated ACR entries, including adverse or below-benchmark entries, cannot be used to adversely affect promotion or service-related benefits, since non-communication violates Article 14.

The same principle was applied through Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368, Kaluram Patidar v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 11064 of 2010, Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P., 2017 (1) MPLJ 391, Higher Education Department v. Dr. (Smt.) Kavita Bundela, W.A. No. 421 of 2017, and Mehfooz Ahmad v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (3) JLJ 17.

The Court found that the petitioner’s second time-scale benefit had already been granted with effect from 1 April 2006 under the applicable policy and that the subsequent order altering the benefit had civil and monetary consequences.

Since the respondents neither issued notice nor afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and the impugned order did not disclose reasons, it failed to satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

Further, the Departmental Committee’s assessment was based on ACRs which had not been communicated to the petitioner.

Applying the rule that uncommunicated adverse or below-benchmark ACRs cannot be considered for promotion, Kramonnati, or time-scale benefits, the Court held that the respondents’ reliance on those ACRs was legally unsustainable.

The impugned order dated 5 March 2019 was quashed.

As the order had already been stayed, the respondents were directed to continue the first and second time-scale benefits previously granted to the petitioner.

Since the petitioner had retired, the respondents were directed to revise his PPO/GPO and grant all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits and arrears arising from the Kramonnati benefits, with interest at 6% per annum.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order; failing that, interest at 12% per annum was directed from the date of entitlement until actual payment.