Rajendra Prasad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking benefit of grant of second time scale of pay as per circular of State Government dated 24.01.2008.

It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that he was appointed as District Adult Education Officer on 18.08.1991. He had completed 16 years of service. As per the Government circular, higher pay scale is to be granted after completion of 8, 16, and 24 years of service. DPC was convened and Screening Committee met on 13. 02.2012. Screening Committee considered the ACRs of five years of officers in zone of consideration. If an officer obtained 10 marks after scrutiny of overall performance of 5 years, then he can be granted benefit of second time scale of pay. On 08.01.2013, orders were passed and juniors to petitioners were granted second time scale of pay but no order was passed in respect of petitioner. Petitioner filed an application on 30.10.2014 making a claim for grant of second time scale of pay but his claim was not considered. Petitioner later on learnt that he was not granted second time scale of pay as offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Crime No. 10/2013 on 20.10.2013. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that on the date of consideration of case of petitioner by DPC, no FIR was registered against the petitioner nor any departmental enquiry was pending nor any charge sheet was filed therefore petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of second time scale of pay. FIR was registered against the petitioner on 20.10.2013 and charge sheet in criminal case was filed on 15.01.2014. Screening Committee meeting was held on 26.10.2012 and on the said date neither any FIR was registered against the petitioner nor charge sheet was filed therefore petitioner ought to have been granted second time scale of pay.

Counsel appearing for the State Government opposed the prayer for grant of second time scale of pay to the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the State Government that as per the circular of State Government dated 11-09-2007 bearing No.C-6-2/2006/3/18, if it comes to notice of DPC before making recommendation of promotion or before passing of an order of promotion a candidate is under suspension, FIR is registered against him, or chargesheet has been filed or departmental enquiry is initiated against him then his case is to be treated and proceeded as per sealed cover procedure. In case of petitioner, he was suspended on 22.10.2013 as FIR against him was registered on 20.10.2013 and charge sheet has been filed on 15. 01.2014, therefore, petitioner was not granted the benefit of second time scale of pay. In view of aforesaid circular of the State Government no illegality has been committed by not granting second time scale of pay to the petitioner.

Heard the counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents. Perused the circulars issued by State Government for grant of benefit of time scale of pay dated 24.01.2008 and dated 07.11.1994 and minutes of meeting of DPC dated 08.01.13. DPC has laid down that ACRs of five years or at least three ACRs of an employee must be of very good or good grade and on the basis of available ACRs candidate must have got 10 marks in overall assessment of ACRs. There shall be no adverse remark in ACRs of five years. In case of officers whose ACRs for 3 years is not available then case of such officers is to be kept for consideration. As per circular of State Government dated 11.09.2007 if condition mentioned in para 2(1) of circular dated 30.06.94 is in existence and it comes to the knowledge of DPC before recommendation has been made or after the recommendation but final orders of promotion has not been passed then such cases are to be treated as cases under sealed cover procedure. Considering the aforesaid norms fixed by the DPC and circulars of State Government mentioned above, it is to be seen whether petitioner is entitled to get second time scale of pay or not.

From the minutes of the meeting of DPC it is reflected that name of petitioner occurs at Sr. No. 23. ACRs from year 2002 to 2006 were considered. Out of ACRs of five years, ACRs of only two years was available i.e. of 2002 and 2004 in which petitioner got A+. ACR of three years i.e. of year 2003, 2004 and 2006 was not available. As per the norms fixed by DPC, if ACRs of one or more year is not available then ACR of previous year or of later year can be considered. ACRs of petitioner for year 2007 was available. Overall 3 ACRs of the petitioner were available. As per criteria laid down by DPC, an officer's name can be kept in circulation if ACRs less than three year are available for overall assessment. In case of petitioner three years ACRs were available i.e. of year 2002, 2005 and 2007, therefore, his name cannot be kept in circulation by DPC and recommendation ought to have been made by DPC as per the norms fixed by it. On the date when DPC was making recommendation i.e. on 08.01.2013, there was no FIR against the petitioner nor any charge sheet was filed. Had it been a case that 3 ACRs were not available and DPC kept the name of petitioner in circulation and, thereafter, before passing of order or making of recommendation for grant of second time scale of pay to petitioner FIR was registered against the petitioner and it has come to the knowledge of DPC only then petitioner's case is to be considered under sealed cover procedure. Circular of 11.09.2007 will not be attracted in the case because no FIR is registered against petitioner and departmental enquiry was initiated against petitioner nor any charge sheet is filed against him on date of meeting of Scrutiny Committee. Further three ACRs of petitioner were available when recommendations were being made by DPC for grant of second time scale of pay therefore his case can not be kept in circulation.

In view of above, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and respondents are directed to convene a review DPC to consider the case of petitioner for grant of second time scale of pay on basis of a ACRs which were available before the DPC i.e. on 8. 01.2013 i.e of year 2002, 2005, and 2007 and if petitioner is found to be fit as per benchmark fixed by DPC then he shall be given benefit of second time scale of pay.

With aforesaid directions writ petition is allowed and disposed off.