CHHOTELAL PRAJAPATI Vs. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-7 dtd. 30/9/2015, whereby the case of the petitioner for preponement of senior and Selection Grade Pay Scales and Fourth Pay Band has been rejected on the ground that the ACRs of the petitioner for the year ending 1990 and 1992 are not available and the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003 are "Average" and therefore, the dates of entitlement to which the petitioner was earlier found eligible by the State Government is to be maintained and the entitlement of Senior Scale w.e.f. 1/4/2002, Selection Grade w.e.f. 1/4/2007 and Fourth Pay Band w.e.f. 1/4/2010 has to be maintained as it is.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular ground that the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003, which are "Average" were never communicated to the petitioner and therefore, they could not be read to disadvantage of the petitioner in postponing his right to receive Senior Pay Scale, Selection Pay Scale and consequential benefits of Fourth Pay Band.

(3.) The State Government in paragraph 9 of the reply has admitted that the ACRs of the years 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2003 were not communicated to the petitioner, because as per the policy of the General Administration Department vide Circular dtd. 25/5/1982 and 20/11/1990 only "Adverse" or "Poor" Grade ACRs are required to be communicated and "Average" Grade ACRs are not required to be communicated. It is further contended in para 10 of the reply that even as per judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 : AIR 2008 SC 2513 only "Good" ACRs are required to be communicated and "Average" ACRs are not required to be communicated.