[2025:RJ-JP:31619] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12768/2012 Ramesh Kumar Goswami son of Shri Shambhu Dayal Goswami, aged about 61 years, R/o. 31-B, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan Teacher, Govt. Hr. Secondary School, Rampura, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Education Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Singh Advocate with Mr. Jitesh Kumawat Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Chanchal Jalwaniya Advocate on behalf of Ms. Namita Parihar Deputy Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 12/08/2025 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents to modify order dated 29.04.2010 qua the petitioner in the manner to extend the benefit of third selection scale with effect from 01.09.2007 instead of 17.10.2008 and to grant consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-II on 17.10.1977 in respondent-department. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Lecturer on 06.04.1989 and was confirmed on the aforesaid post vide order dated 31.03.1998. [2025:RJ-JP:31619] (2 of 3) [CW-12768/2012] 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled for benefit of Assured Career Progression (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ACP’) on completion of 20 and 30 years of service. As per the petitioner, he had completed 30 years of service on 01.09.2007, yet benefit of ACP payable on completion of 30 years of service has been granted to him from 17.10.2008. Deferring such benefit for a period of one year has caused grave prejudice as well as heavy financial loss to the petitioner. 4. Reply to writ petition has been filed by the respondents contending therein that although the petitioner had completed 30 years of service on 01.09.2007, yet the reason for deferring the benefit of ACP for a period of one year was that there was one adverse entry in Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ACR’) of the petitioner in the year 2004-05. 5. On a specific query put to learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the provisions empowering the respondents to defer the benefit of ACP only on account of there being an adverse entry in ACR of the petitioner, no such provision or even circular issued by the State Government could be shown by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, where admittedly, the petitioner had completed 30 years of service on 01.09.2007, mere one adverse entry in ACR cannot be considered to be a justified ground for deferring the benefit of ACP for a period of one year. It is relevant to observe that the consideration for grant of ACP is although rendering of satisfactory service by the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:31619] (3 of 3) [CW-12768/2012] employee, yet the terms ‘satisfactory service’ for the purpose of grant of selection scale cannot be extended to the extent of examining the ACR. The circulars and revised pay scale rules issued by the respondent-Government also do not contain any such provision for deferring the benefit of ACP on account of having any adverse entry in ACR. In absence of any such rule or circular, action of deferring the benefit qua the petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal. Hence, order dated 29.04.2010 is liable to be modified accordingly. 7. In view of above discussion, writ petition field by the petitioner is allowed. Order dated 29.04.2010 is modified to the extent that benefit of ACP on completion of 30 years of service shall be granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2007. Arrears, if any consequent upon aforesaid modification, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /29