The court upheld that all ACR entries must be communicated within a reasonable time, ruling that uncommunicated remarks cannot affect entitlements under service rules.

Order :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. Heard Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to this case.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and set aside the impugned Order dated 06.10.2016 against the petitioner vide which the date of option of the Higher Pay Scale of SE (Civil) has been made effective from 01.04.2016 instead of making effective from 20.08.2016.

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to issue revised order making effective the due date of Option as 20.08.2016 keeping intact the other terms and conditions same as of the impugned Order dated 23.01.2018.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with the cost of the petition.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.01.2018 (Annexure P/1), whereby the respondents have unreasonably altered the anniversary date for grant of increment/higher pay scale from 20.08.2016 to 01.04.2017, resulting in an undue delay of eight months and consequential financial loss to the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed in the erstwhile MPEB as Junior Engineer (Trainee–Civil) on 18.07.1991. Upon reorganization of the State, his services stood transferred to CSPDCL. Thereafter, CSPDCL adopted the service rules of erstwhile MPEB vide Circulars dated 14.04.2001 and 21.06.2001.

4. The respondent–CSPDCL, vide order dated 19.07.2005, circulated the provisions for grant of higher pay scales to Class–I & II employees on completion of 9/18/25/30 years of service, delinking the requirement of promotion. The circular prescribed four ‘Options’ with distinct eligibility criteria: (i) First Option upon completion of 9 years of service, effective from the day following the anniversary of initial appointment; (ii) Second Option upon completion of 18 years of service; (iii) Third Option upon completion of 25 years of service; and (iv) Fourth Option upon completing 30 years of service and 5 years after grant of the first higher pay scale, subject to exclusion of supersession period, wherever applicable.

5. The petitioner’s case pertains to Option-1, Option-2 and Option-3. He was granted the first and second higher pay scales under Option-1 and Option-2 vide sanction orders dated 06.11.2009, based upon completion of 9 years (w.e.f. 19.08.2000) and 18 years (w.e.f. 20.08.2009) of service respectively, strictly in accordance with the circular dated 19.07.2005. In both instances, the respondents had rightly considered the petitioner's anniversary date of joining i.e. 19.08.1991 for reckoning completion of 9 and 18 years, thereby granting the higher pay scales from the very next day.

6. Upon completing 25 years of service, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15.07.2016 seeking grant of the Third Higher Pay Scale (Option-3) in the Pay Matrix Level-3 (₹ 86,600 – 1,92,300). The respondents, however, vide communication dated 03.11.2016, rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner allegedly did not fulfil the requisite ACR criteria up to 31.03.2016, stating that his case would be reviewed after consideration of the ACR for March 2017.

7. Ultimately, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the higher pay scale of Superintending Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 23.01.2018. However, the effective date—legally accruing on 20.08.2016 was wrongly shifted to 01.04.2017 without any valid justification. The petitioner asserts that there is no adverse entry in his ACRs for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 or 2016-17. No adverse remark was ever communicated to him which could disentitle him from receiving the 3rd higher pay scale from the actu