No ACRs Because You Were Wrongly Thrown Out? Supreme Court Grants Judicial Officer Selection and Super Time Scale

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that a judicial officer whose discharge it had earlier quashed cannot be denied Selection Scale and Super Time Scale for lack of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years he was kept out of service. Since the shortfall was caused by the employer’s wrongful act, it directed that his entitlement be assessed on his valid ACRs, excluded an uncommunicated ACR, and fixed the dates from which the scales are due.

The officer was appointed to the District Judge cadre in 2013 and discharged on 27 January 2016 after a Full Court decision. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his writ petition, but on 15 March 2022 the Supreme Court quashed the discharge and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority and all consequential benefits, with 50% back wages. He was reinstated on 13 April 2022.

When he sought Selection Scale and Super Time Scale, the High Court’s administrative side referred to the absence of the required number of ACRs for the years he was out of service. On 21 August 2024 the Full Court found him not suitable. The High Court then applied to the Supreme Court for clarification of whether ‘consequential benefits’ included these scales without the required ACRs.

The Key Question Before the Court

Do the ‘consequential benefits’ of quashing a wrongful discharge include Selection Scale and Super Time Scale even when ACRs for the period out of service do not exist?

An Employer Cannot Benefit From Its Own Wrong

The Court held that the missing ACRs were not the officer’s fault but the direct result of the wrongful discharge. Relying on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 08 SC CK 0049 and Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh Jadon, (2022) 08 SC CK 0008, it said: “The law does not permit a party to derive an advantage from its own wrongful act.” Following Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal, (2015) 07 SC CK 0063 and R.K. Jibanlata Devi, (2023) 02 SC CK 0055, where the employer causes the shortfall, entitlement is assessed on the remaining valid ACRs.

Relying on Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 04 SC CK 0036, the Court held that “an uncommunicated ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee”, and excluded the 2015 ACR, which was also recorded after the discharge. It then assessed the officer on his 2013 ACR and 2014 Parts I and II ACRs, and computed the due dates from his appointment on 15 July 2013.

What the Court Actually Held

• The officer is entitled to Selection Scale from 16 July 2018 and Super Time Scale from 16 July 2021.
• Entitlement is assessed on his valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014 (Parts I and II); the uncommunicated 2015 ACR is excluded.
• Arrears are to be computed in line with the 50% back wages direction of the 2022 judgment.
• The High Court must re-fix his pay, revise consequential benefits and pay arrears within three months; the Registry is to send copies to all High Courts.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It protects reinstated employees from being penalised for gaps the employer caused.
• It reaffirms that uncommunicated adverse or incomplete ACRs cannot be used against an employee.
• It gives High Courts guidance on applying ‘consequential benefits’ to judicial officers.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Reinstated Employees

• Argue that missing ACRs during wrongful exclusion cannot count against you.
• Check whether any ACR relied on was communicated to you.

For Employers and Administrations

• Assess promotions and higher scales on the valid ACRs available.
• Do not rely on ACRs written after removal or never communicated.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

It was never communicated to the officer and was recorded after the discharge order.

Arrears are to be computed in line with the 50% back wages direction in the 2022 judgment.

The Court measured them from his appointment on 15 July 2013, noting that juniors had received the benefits in 2019 and 2023.

Conclusion