IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 8564 of 2021 R.S. MAHOR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Prashant Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Narottam Sharma - Advocate for respondent no.1.

ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby his representation seeking upgradation of his ACRs has been rejected by the respondent-Federation. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of time pay scale from the date of his entitlement.

2. The petitioner was working as Manager in the M.P. State Co-

operative Dairy Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Federation'). Initially, when he was not granted the benefit of third time scale of pay, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.5699/2015. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2015, directing the Federation to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation. Pursuant thereto, the representation was considered and rejected by order dated 13.01.2016, on the ground that the petitioner had failed to achieve the prescribed benchmark on the basis of his ACRs.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P. No.5655/2016, challenging the order dated 13.01.2016. This Court held that uncommunicated ACRs had been considered by the respondents while denying the benefit of time pay scale, and accordingly, the order dated 13.01.2016 was set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation seeking upgradation of his ACRs, and the respondents were directed to consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter decide the petitioner's entitlement to the time scale of pay. The order dated 15.04.2019 passed in W.P. No.5655/2016 has been placed on record as Annexure P/3.

4. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure P/4) before the Managing Director of the respondent-Federation. The representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P/1). The impugned order states that the petitioner was granted a personal hearing on 26.06.2019 and was allowed seven days' time to produce relevant documents in support of his representation, which he allegedly failed to do. It is further stated that comments were sought from the reporting authority, who opined that there was no justification given by petitioner for upgradation of his ACRs.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is once again before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the petitioner's representation. It is submitted that although comments from the reporting officer were obtained, the competent authority failed to independently apply its mind and mechanically relied upon the said comments. It is further submitted that no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. Learned counsel also contended that instead of considering five years' ACRs, the respondents illegally considered seven years' ACRs while deciding the petitioner's claim for time scale of pay.

6. Referring to the ACRs for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2010-11 &

2012-13, learned counsel argued that grading the petitioner as "average" is illegal and arbitrary, as no adverse remarks were ever communicated, nor was any dissatisfaction regarding his work recorded. No instance of disobedience, dereliction of duty, or misconduct was pointed out during the said period. It is further submitted that the ACRs for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are not available. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's representation for upgradation of ACRs and denying him the benefit of time pay scale is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.

7. Per