1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary non-grant of benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd upgradation of
pay in the pay-scale under the advancement Scheme floated by respondent no. 1 / University from time to time.
2 The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Technical Assistant in the service of the erstwhile Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Jabalpur on 06/04/1989. He continued to serve the then University as such till 23/12/2004. The petitioner was subsequently appointed by order dated
16/12/2004 issued by respondent no. 1 on the post of Assistant Professor at Entomology and was posted in the college of Horticulture, Mandsaur
under the aegis of erstwhile Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. The year 2009 witnessed bifurcation of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. Into two district Universities viz. Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwvidyalaya, Gwalior and Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur.. The petitioner on account o such bifurcation became the employee of respondent no. 1 University from the date of its
incorporation as the same was creature of statute framed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner obtained Ph.D degree in Zoology from Devi
Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore in the year 1995 ( Annexure-P/2). The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 1 University has first notified a
Carrer Advancement Scheme on 30/01/2012 by Notification no. Estt-I/RC/13TH CAS/2012 to be made effective w.e.f 01/01/2008. As per criteria of
this Carrer Advancement Scheme, the pettiioner is entitled to be granted 1st upgradation of pay in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + AGP Rs.
7000/- after completion of four years of service as Assistant Professor. Thus, the petitioner became eligible to get the aforesaid pay-scale with AGP
of Rs. 7000/- w.e.f. 24/12/2008. Despite the fact that he already submitted his annual assessment report for the period of 2006-07 to the Dean of
College of Horiculture, Mandsaur on 01/06/2007 i.e. well within the stipulated time ( Annexure-P/3) at the time of consideration of his case for
upgradation of his pay under Carrer Advancement Scheme, 2012, the petitioner's ACR for the year 2006-07 was found to be not available in the
record and the respondent no. 1 University ( Annexure-P/4) vide its letter dated 17/07/2012 addressed to the Dean, Vollege of Agriculture, Indore
called upon him to ensure availability of the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2006-07 along with the requisite reporting to be made by the
concerned Authority, owever, this letter came to be received in the office of the Dean, College of Agriculture, Indore only on 16/07/2012. By that
time, the exercise of considering the case of other similarly situated persons was already over.
3Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â That acting in prompitute, the petitioner again submitted his annual assessment report from the year 2006-07 for information
and necessary action to the Dean, College of Horticulture, Mandsaur through Dean, College of Agriculture, Indore by submitting       Â
an application dated 18/07/2012 (Annexure-P/5). But to his utter surprise, the petitioner's ACRs could not be reached there in time and in the meeting
of Carrer Advancement Scheme Committee held on 04/07/2013, the petitioner's ACR was found to be 2.67 wherein thepetitioner was shocked to see
that the ACR for the year 2007-08 was graded as 'C', 2006-07 was not available although ACRs for the year 2004-05 and for the year 2005-06 were
graded as 'B'. Similarly, as regards the marks to be awarded under several heads / attributes, the petitioner was given 'O' marks under experience
head for serving in the rural areas, service rendered at Farms/In-charge Ambulatory Clinic or hospital / administration work as also service rendered
in other activities such as hostel warden, sports, NCC, NSS, DIC Library, College academic work etc Thus, petitioner's total score out of 100 was
32.67 and in order to be eligible for the grant of up-gradation of pay under Career Advancement Scheme, the petitioner was to get 50 marks out of
100.     A copy of the score card of the petitioner under Career Advancement Scheme, 2012 dated 04/07/2013 is Annexure-P/6. After re-
writing of the ACRs for the year 2006-07, which was missing at the time of consideration of his cse for grant of up-gradation in the pay scale of Rs.
15600-39100 + AGP Rs. 7000/-. the petitioner submitted an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 27/02/2015 in respect of which , he
was apprised by the respondent no. 1 that his ACRs for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 all were average in nature and on account of not
meeting out the benchmark of 50 marks, he could not be granted the benefit of upgradation of pay under Carrer Advancement Scheme, even though it
was orally informed to the petitioner which made him to submit a representation dated 11/05/2015 ( Annexure-P/7) and reprsentation dated 07/07/2015
( Annexure-P/8) for grant of benefit of up-gradation of pay under Carrer Advancement Scheme after reviewing / reconsidering his claim in view o the
aforesaid premise, However, these representation have not seen the light of the day so far. That, as the petitioner by now became eligible for grant of
1st and 2nd up-gradation of pay in the pay-scales of Rs. 15600-39100 + AGP Rs. 7000/- and Rs. 15600-39100 + AGP Rs. 8000/- w.e.f. 24/12/2008
and 24/12/2013 respectively, he applied for grant of both the up-gradations pursuant to the pursuant to the aforesaid Notification vide copies of the
applications submitted in the prescribed format, copy of which is Annexure-P/10.
4 In the year 2013, the University has issued a Career Advancement Scheme and thereafter, revised Career Advancement Scheme was also framed.
As per the respondent, the case of the petitioner was considered in respect of placement from Assistant Professor to Assistant Professor ( Senior
Scale) and as the average value is 2.67 and received 32.67 marks, minimum eligible marks is 60 has been prescribed, therefore, as the petitioner does
not fulfill all these criteria and therefore, his case has not been recommended by the Selection Committee for aforesaid benefits. That, again the case
of the petitioner has been considered on 05/10/2017 for revised Career Advancement Scheme in rspect of placement from Assistant Professor to
State 1 ( AGP 6000) to Stage 2 ( AGP 7000) and as the average value is 1.36 below the required marks i.e. 1.6, therefore, his case has not been
recommended by the Selection Committee for aforesaid benefits
5 As per the score card adopted by the respondent alongwith their reply, it found that the petitioner had obtained 2.67 marks for the ACR in the
meeting dated 04/07/2013. Statement showing C.R grading was also filed. According to which, C.R of 2002-03 and 2003-04 were not shown as to
whether they are available or not ?. As per C.R of 2004-05 and 2005-06, the petitioner obtained “B Gradeâ€. So far as C.R of 2006-07 is
concerned, it has been stated that there are not available and so far as C.R of 2007-08 is average, however, these C.R were not communicated to the
petitioner, therefore, this cannot be taken into consideration while considering the case of the petitioner for granting benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd
upgradation.
6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court decided W.P. no. 4305/2018 ( Dr. Jyoti Vaidya Vs. Higher
Education Department ) and other connected writ petition. In the said writ petitions, benefit of senior grade pay-scale, selection grade pay scale and
benefit of pay band of IV have not been extended to those petitioners and therefore, they had approached this Court by filing different writ petitions In
the said writ petitions , the respondent has taken stand that ACR of the petitioner was not upto the bench mark, therefore, they have not extended the
said benefit.
7 In the present case also, similar objection has been raised by the respondent while denying the said benefit to the petitioner. This Court, while
deciding the writ petitions, in para 8 and 9 has held as under :
“8 There is no cavil of doubt that ‘every entry in the ACR of a public servant’ is required to be communicated as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Devdutt’s case (supra). But in Sukhdev Singh’s case(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has approved the
said judgment with further justification as contained in para 8 thereof:
8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period
is legally sound and helps in achieving three fold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to
work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his working and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of
the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for
upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks
relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR
poor, fair, average, good or very good â€" must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.
9 Under such circumstances, the contentions advanced by learned Dy. Advocate General pales into insignificance and of no consequence.
8 Thus, writ appeal was filed against the said judgment, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01/03/2019
9 Thus, in light of the aforesaid, present petition is also stands allowed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to
grant 1st, 2nd and 3rd upgradation of pay in the pay-scale and release arrears thereof
C c as per rules
