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

The petitioner, an Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari who had retired from service, was granted the benefit of the second higher time scale of pay under Annexure P/2.

Subsequently, the respondents passed an order dated 06.10.2018 withdrawing or altering that benefit.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought quashing of the impugned order, restoration of the second time scale, and consequential monetary and retiral benefits.

The petitioner contended that the controversy was covered by the judgment dated 03.07.2026 in Dr. Narhari Sharma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 22947 of 2017.

The State opposed the petition but was unable to distinguish the facts of the present case from those considered in Narhari Sharma.

Whether the respondents could withdraw or alter the petitioner’s second higher time-scale benefit by order dated 06.10.2018 without adequate notice, opportunity of hearing, and compliance with the principles of natural justice?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the second time-scale benefit granted under Annexure P/2, along with consequential retiral and monetary benefits?

Whether the judgment in Dr. Narhari Sharma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others governed the petitioner’s case?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that an administrative order having civil consequences cannot ordinarily be passed without notice and an opportunity of hearing.

It relied on the State Government policy dated 24.01.2008, under which Class A and B employees became eligible for time-scale benefits after completion of the prescribed periods of service, with the policy operating retrospectively from 01.04.2006.

The Court further applied the rule that uncommunicated adverse ACRs cannot be relied upon to deny promotion, kramonnati, or time-scale benefits, relying on Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146 / (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 959, Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368, and the decisions in Kaluram Patidar, Rajendra Kumar Verma, and Mehfooz Ahmad.

The Court also followed the principle that where the employee is not at fault and the denial of service benefits is attributable to the department, consequential monetary benefits cannot be refused merely on the basis of “no work no pay,” as recognised in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, and subsequent decisions.

The Court treated the reasoning in Dr. Narhari Sharma as directly applicable to the petitioner’s case.

The Court found that the State’s challenge to the petitioner’s second time-scale benefit raised the same legal controversy already decided in Dr. Narhari Sharma.

In that precedent, alteration of the benefit without notice or hearing, and reliance on uncommunicated ACRs, were held legally unsustainable because such action had civil consequences and violated the principles of natural justice and fairness.

The Government Advocate was unable to identify any factual or legal distinction between that case and the petitioner’s case.

Consequently, the Court applied the same reasoning and held that the impugned order could not stand, while the benefit already granted under Annexure P/2 was required to be restored.

The order dated 06.10.2018, Annexure P/1, was quashed.

The second higher time-scale benefit granted under Annexure P/2 was restored, and the respondents were directed to continue that benefit.

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

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

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.