Judgment: K.K. Trivedi, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that though a Scheme was made by the respondent for grant of higher grade pay scale way back, to those employees who have completed 9 years of service on one post without any promotion, such a benefit was not extended to the petitioner only because of the adverse entry recorded in his confidential report. Further claim of the petitioner is that the direct recruitment process was started on the post of Diploma Trainee, but again the petitioner was not found fit for such appointment in the year 1988-89 because of the adverse entry recorded in his confidential report. Subsequently the petitioner was appointed as Diploma Trainee in the year 1991. When he was communicated the adverse entry in the confidential report he preferred a dispute under section 31(3) read with section 61 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') before the Labour Court challenging the validity of the said confidential report. The Labour Court considered the claim of the petitioner and passed an order against him rejecting his application. The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 65 of the Act before the Industrial Court, Rewa, and by order dated 31-7-2002, ultimately the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, the adverse entry recorded in confidential report of the petitioner was expunged. Against such an order of the Industrial Court a writ petition was filed by the respondent before this Court being W. P. No. 5493/2002, which ultimately was dismissed on 14-10-2003. After passing of the order in the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent claiming the benefit of higher pay scale as also grant of direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee with retrospective effect intimating the effect of expunging of the adverse remark by the order of the Court. However, since till the date of retirement nothing was done, on the other hand the petitioner was communicated that he has not been found fit for grant of such benefit on account of his ACR, the writ petition is required to be filed. The petitioner has thus claimed the benefit for grant of higher pay scale with admissible interest as also direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee w.e.f. year 1989. 2. The petitioner has thus claimed the benefit for grant of higher pay scale with admissible interest as also direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee w.e.f. year 1989. 2. Contesting the claim made by the petitioner, a return has been filed indicating that the petitioner was considered in due time for grant of benefit. In terms of the Scheme made by the respondent on 4-3-1987, as modified vide order dated 20-9-1988, the claim of the petitioner was considered but he was not found fit. This fact was intimated to him in the year 1989 itself. Later on again it was informed to him in the year 1992. This being so, it is contended that the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Again claim of the petitioner was examined after filing of the present writ petition and the said fact was again informed to the competent authority vide memo dated 21-4-2006. The petitioner was not to be selected for appointment on the post of Diploma Trainee Grade-I. When the petitioner was found fit, such benefit was extended to him vide order dated 8-2-1991. Accordingly, it is reiterated by the respondent again and again that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 3. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner and the same facts have been reiterated. The claim is made that the petitioner would have been given the benefit of appointment on the post of Diploma Trainee i.e. Technical Examiner Grade-I w.e.f. year 1989, had his expunged ACR would not have been taken into consideration. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. 5. Undisputedly, the claim was to be considered on the basis of ACRs. It is also not in dispute that adverse entry recorded in the ACR of the petitioner of the year 1984-85 was not interfered with by the Industrial Court till the year 2002. The dispute brought before the Labour Court was decided against the petitioner by the Labour Court on 7-3-2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed only on 31-7-2002. The Industrial Court has categorically held that there was no reason to record the adverse entry in the confidential report of the petitioner referred to hereinabove and, therefore, the same was liable to be expunged. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed only on 31-7-2002. The Industrial Court has categorically held that there was no reason to record the adverse entry in the confidential report of the petitioner referred to hereinabove and, therefore, the same was liable to be expunged. This order of the Industrial Court has been affirmed by this Court, by dismissing the writ petition of the respondent on 14-10-2003 as indicated above. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of the respondent to hold a review of the entire claim of the petitioner, first of all to consider him for the purposes of grant of higher pay scale in terms of the Scheme made by the respondent, and in case the petitioner is found fit to extend the said benefit as was subsequently ordered by the respondents vide their circular dated 11-12-1984. In the second phase the case of the petitioner for direct recruitment on the post of Diploma Trainee, was to be considered again as was done in the year 1988-89 pursuance to the instructions contained in Annexure R-l read with provisions of the Scheme made on 4-3-1987. In fact the modification in the said Scheme was done vide order dated 20-9-1988 and in terms of this modification the petitioner would have become entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Diploma Trainee as he has obtained a Diploma in Engineering before 14-8-1988, which fact is not disputed by the respondent. There is nothing placed on record to indicate that this exercise was done by the respondent after the final decision in the matter of adverse entry of the petitioner of the year 1984-85. That being so, it would not be justified on the part of the respondent to say that the claim of the petitioner was properly considered and rejected. 6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of benefit of higher pay scale on completion of 9 years of service in terms of the Scheme made in that respect w.e.f. 1-4-1984. In case the petitioner is found fit on re-screening of the case of the petitioner after taking note of expunged ACR of the year 1984-85 the said benefit be extended to him. In case the petitioner is found fit on re-screening of the case of the petitioner after taking note of expunged ACR of the year 1984-85 the said benefit be extended to him. In the same manner, the respondent would also examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on the post of Diploma Trainee in terms of the Scheme made in that respect. In case the petitioner is found fit for grant of the aforesaid benefit, necessary orders be issued extending all monetary benefits to the petitioner from the date due. The petitioner would also be entitled to revision of his pension as admittedly now he has been superannuated from service. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.