No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSS No.1993 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla and Mr. B. M. Pingal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State. 3. On the last date of hearing, the Coordinate Bench had directed the learned State Counsel to seek instructions as to whether the expressions “Good” and “Satisfactory” entries are synonymous and interchangeable in terms of the Government Orders issued by the Personnel Department of the State Government. 4. Today, learned counsel for the State, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the petitioner was awarded the entries ‘Good/ Satisfactory’, and that, as per the applicable Government Orders, these two expressions are interchangeable. He further submitted, on the basis of the instructions received, that since the annual confidential entries of the petitioner for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 were ‘Satisfactory’, they were never communicated to him. 5. Since, under the Government Orders governing entitlement to Modified Assured Career Progression (ACP), the annual confidential entries for the last five years of an employee must be ‘Very Good’ or above, the petitioner was held ineligible for the said benefit, as she was having satisfactory/ good ACR entries for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted position that the annual confidential entries for the years 2019– 2020 and 2020–2021 were never communicated to the petitioner. He relied upon Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Disposal of Representation against Adverse, Bad, Satisfactory, Good, Very Good and Outstanding Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules, 2015, which provides that any entries that are not communicated, or in respect of which representations have not been decided, shall not be taken into consideration for promotion or granting any service benefit to the employee. 7. Relying on the above Rules, he argued that the annual confidential entries for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 ought not to have been taken into consideration, and that the entries preceding these two years, i.e., for 2017–2018 and 2018–2019, should have been considered while assessing the petitioner’s eligibility for grant of the second ACP 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, wherein it has been held that any uncommunicated entry cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of promotion or other service benefits. 9. This Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the entries for the years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 were never communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the State could not have relied upon these entries while considering the petitioner’s claim for grant of the benefit of second ACP. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider only the last five communicated ACR entries of the petitioner. If the entries for these years are found to be ‘Very Good’ or above, the petitioner shall be granted the second ACP from the date on which she became entitled to it. The entire exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 03.12.2025 BS