Employer Cannot Deny Promotion Or Pay Scale For Missing ACRs Caused By Its Own Wrongful Action: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court accordingly held that a reinstated Rajasthan judicial officer was entitled to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale based on his valid ACRs, after finding that the Rajasthan High Court’s administrative side could not rely on the absence of ACRs during the period when he had been wrongfully kept out of service.

The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on its administrative side, seeking clarification on whether the judicial officer’s reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority and consequential benefits included the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale despite non-availability of ACRs for six out of seven relevant years.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed: “ …since the applicant was itself responsible for the opponent’s wrongful discharge and the resultant non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs, the said circumstance could not have been relied upon by it to deny the opponent the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale.”

The Bench added: “…where the non-availability of the requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer, the employee’s entitlement to the promotion/pay in question is required to be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs”.

Advocate Gopal Jha appeared for the Rajasthan High Court, while Advocate Supriya Juneja appeared for the judicial officer.

Background

The judicial officer had been appointed in the District Judge cadre of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. After his discharge, he approached the Supreme Court, which quashed the discharge order and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and seniority, along with 50% back wages.

After reinstatement, the officer sought Super Time Scale. The Rajasthan High Court’s administrative side took the position that most of the relevant ACRs were unavailable because the officer had remained out of service, and therefore sought clarification from the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Court framed the question as whether the consequential benefits awarded in the earlier judgment included Selection Scale or Super Time Scale despite the absence of the requisite number of ACRs.

The Bench stated: “Our adjudication essentially revolves around the core issue whether the opponent Judicial Officer is entitled to the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale, despite the non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs.”

The Court examined Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) and Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh Jadon (2022), observing that service benefits cannot be denied where the employee was kept away from work for no fault of his.

The Court noted: “The question whether the Judicial Officer could have been denied the benefit of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale for want of the requisite ACRs has to be considered in the backdrop of the circumstances which led to the non-availability of those ACRs.”

It further observed: “Both the decisions embody the principle that the consequential benefits of seniority, pay, promotion and the like, cannot be refused merely because fulfilment of the eligibility conditions had been rendered impossible by the employer’s own wrongful act of causing impediment in the service tenure of the employee.”

The Bench relied on Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC (2015) and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur (2023), holding that where ACRs are unavailable due to the employer’s fault, the employee must be assessed based on available, valid ACRs.

The Court stated: “This Court in a plethora of its decisions has held that even when the requisite number of valid ACRs are not available, that in itself should not make the employee ineligible for the pay scale or promotion involved.”

The Bench added: “Rather, in circumstances where the employee is found to be not responsible for the default, the evaluations for the respective pay scale or promotion are to be undertaken based on the remaining ACRs which are valid.”

The Court also held that the judicial officer’s ACR for 2015 could not be used against him, as the earlier judgment had found that adverse remarks in that ACR could not have formed the basis of discharge and that non-communication of the ACR was arbitrary.

Referring to Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), the Court observed: “In view of the law laid down by this Court in Sukhdev Singh vs Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], an uncommunicated ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee while determining his entitlement to promotion, pay scale or any career advancement.”

The Court therefore held that the officer had to be assessed only on the remaining valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014, which recorded “Very good”, “Very good” and “Good” remarks.

The Court held that to give full effect to reinstatement with continuity of service and seniority, the officer was entitled to Selection Scale from the date when he first became due for consideration under Rule 49 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and Super Time Scale after completing the required period under Rule 50.

The Bench concluded: “Having regard to the opponent’s valid ACRs for the years 2013 and 2014 (Part I & Part II), read with the findings recorded by this Court whereby the opponent was granted reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority and all consequential benefits, we hold that the opponent is entitled to the grant of Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018 and Super Time Scale with effect from 16.07.2021.”

Conclusion

The Court directed the Rajasthan High Court’s administrative side to refix the judicial officer’s pay, revise consequential benefits and disburse arrears within three months, while computing arrears in line with the earlier direction limiting back wages to 50%.

The Registry was also directed to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.

Cause Title: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 762)

Click here to read/download Judgment