JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside the orders dated 30.09.2005 passed by respondent No.3 and the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by respondent No.2 and further direction is sought to declare the action of the respondent authority of non-granting the monetary and other consequential benefits of promotion to the petitioner with effect from November 2001 as bad, arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in service with the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) as Junior Engineer/Technical Assistant with effect from 15.02.1971. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Engineer with effect from 09.06.1975. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 18.07.1989 and was posted to Achhalia (TR Division). 2.1 The petitioner was working at 220 KV Navsari (TR Division) from 14.07.1998 to February 2002 as Executive Engineer and, thereafter, the he was posted as Executive Engineer (O & M) Urban Division, GEB, Surat. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that his name was shown at Serial No.55 in the Seniority List as on 01.04.2000. The respondent – Board issued the order of promotions from Serial Nos.52 to 72 in the month of November 2001 promoting 17 Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineer(SE), and only the name of the petitioner at Serial No.55 was excluded. Thus, the petitioner was superceded and other Executive Engineers, who are juniors to the petitioner, were promoted. 2.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner being superceded in promotion order dated 15.11.2001, he made representation to the respondent – Board immediately. Till the date of promotion order dated 15.11.2001, no adverse remarks, memo or any notice or any disciplinary actions were initiated or contemplated or pending against the petitioner and the petitioner worked satisfactorily with all expected merits. The petitioner had, therefore, requested the respondent – Board to consider his case for promotion, however, the petitioner did not receive any reply. 2.4 Again the Board issued further order promoting Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineers in the year 2002. Though the petitioner's name was at Serial No.9 as per the Seniority list dated 01.04.2002, and though Executive Engineers upto Serial No.34 in the seniority list were promoted, the petitioner was not promoted and was again superceded in promotion. 2.4 Again the Board issued further order promoting Executive Engineers to the post of Superintending Engineers in the year 2002. Though the petitioner's name was at Serial No.9 as per the Seniority list dated 01.04.2002, and though Executive Engineers upto Serial No.34 in the seniority list were promoted, the petitioner was not promoted and was again superceded in promotion. The petitioner has asserted that he was not informed or made to know as to why he was not promoted. 2.5 The petitioner, therefore, made representation dated 24.03.2003 through proper channel – the Chief Engineer, South Zone, Surat. The Chief Engineer, (South Zone), Surat forwarded the representation of the petitioner alongwith his recommendation letter dated 02.04.2003 to the respondent – Board. The Chief Engineer specifically stated in the recommendation letter for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer with due date, stating specifically that the petitioner is very hard working in release of new connections, reduction in T & D losses, revenue collection, reduction in arrears, instalation checking drive etc. and that the work of petitioner was found excellent during his working as Executive Engineer in Urban Division, Surat. 2.6 Thereafter, further promotion orders were issued by the respondent – Board and again the petitioner was superseded by promoted Executive Engineers. The petitioner, therefore, made further representation dated 31.01.2005 to the respondent – Board through proper channel – the Chief Engineer, Surat who forwarded the said representation to the respondent – Board alongwith his detailed positive recommendation that the petitioner obtained remarkable results, and that, there has been tremendous increase in the revenue and drastic reduction in the losses as a result of work carried out by the petitioner, and recommended for promotion of the petitioner. 2.7 In spite of several representations, the respondent – Board neither promoted the present petitioner nor considered the representations. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.10629 of 2005. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2005, wherein, it was directed that the petition may be treated as representation of the petitioner and the respondent – Board may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law by 30.09.2005. In such circumstances, the said petition was withdrawn. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2005, wherein, it was directed that the petition may be treated as representation of the petitioner and the respondent – Board may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law by 30.09.2005. In such circumstances, the said petition was withdrawn. However, it was clarified in the said order that if the ultimate order is against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law and as per the policy of the Board. 2.8 After passing of the said order, the respondent No.2 herein, by an order dated 30.09.2005 rejected the request for promotion of the petitioner on the ground that the ratings of the petitioner in the Confidential Reports is below 55% for the years 1996 to 2000 and that disciplinary actions are contemplated vide show cause notice dated 11.07.2003. Further, the notice dated 11.07.2003 was issued after November 2001 when the petitioner was superseded in promotion. After the reply of the petitioner no further action was taken and, thereafter, another show cause notice was given on 04.03.2006 which is also replied to by the petitioner on 10.03.2006. Thereafter, noting further is done and the reply of the petitioner is accepted by the respondent. 2.9 Finally, the petitioner was served with the order of promotion dated 25.04.2006, whereby, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. Immediately, thereafter, on 26.04.2006, the petitioner made representation requesting the respondents to grant the promotion with effect from 15.11.2001 as the petitioner was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications prescribed for the same, and his immediate juniors to the petitioner were promoted in November 2001. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Thakkar appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a clear case of discrimination and gross injustice to the petitioner because for no reason, the petitioner's promotion was withheld, in spite of the fact that several other juniors to the petitioners were promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer since November 2001. Till the date of promotion order dated 15.11.2001, there was no adverse remarks, nor any memo, nor notice, nor disciplinary action against the petitioner, however, still the promotion was wrongfully not granted to the petitioner in November 2001. 3.1 He has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits of the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.11.2001. 3.1 He has further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits of the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.11.2001. The pay-scale of Executive Engineer is of Rs.10,400-350-12,150-375-15,525, whereas, the pay-scale for the post of Superintending Engineer is Rs.13,000-400-18,600. Thus, there is a major difference in the said pay-scale. If the petitioner is not given the consequential benefits of the promotion with effect from 15.11.2001, the petitioner would suffer great loss and the legitimate rights of the petitioner would be jeopardized, and grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner. 3.2 He has further submitted that being highly aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.20477 of 2006 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2006, wherein, it was directed to the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner dated 26.04.2006 and examine the grievance of the petitioner and consider the representation and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law and it was further observed that if any adverse order is passed, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 3.3 He has further submitted that thereafter, vide letter/communication dated 21.11.2006, the respondent company rejected the representation of the petitioner to grant promotion with effect from November 2001, on totally erroneous ground, that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite merit-cum-seniority criteria for promotion because the petitioner has rating below 55% in the Confidential Reports for the year 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. 3.4 He has further submitted that in reply to the same, the petitioner again vide communication dated 27.01.2007 made representation requesting to review the office order dated 21.11.2006. In the said representation, the petitioner pointed out that the order dated 21.11.2006 rejecting the representation of the petitioner was erroneous. He further demanded the General Standing Orders/Service Regulations/Circulars, of the respondents prescribing that in the merit-cum-seniority criteria, the employees should have a rating above 55% in at least five (05) out of seven (07) preceding Confidential Reports. The petitioner also demanded the copy of ephemeral roll which the reporting officer is required to maintain as per establishment circular No.288 dated 02.08.1978. The petitioner also demanded the copy of ephemeral roll which the reporting officer is required to maintain as per establishment circular No.288 dated 02.08.1978. However, the respondents did not provide the said information demanded by the petitioner and vide communication dated 08.05.2007, it was intimated to the petitioner that the representation dated 26.04.2006 is considered on merits and, therefore, nothing is required to be done. It is further submitted by him that as per the petitioner's knowledge, there is no such rule or regulation prescribing such a criteria for merit-cum-seniority and the action of the respondent authority rejecting the representation is erroneous and a gross case of discrimination. 3.5 He has further submitted that the ratings in the Confidential Reports were never communicated to the petitioner. He has submitted that, in fact, the case of the petitioner was recommended by the letter dated 02.04.2003 by the Chief Engineer for granting the post to the present petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, again on 02.02.2005, the case of the petitioner was recommended, however, the petitioner was only promoted on 26.04.2006. Thus, in support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566 . 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dave appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion from the deemed date. He has submitted that vide General Standing Order dated 04.10.1960, the promotional criteria to the select grade posts has been made on the basis of senioritycum- merit. It has been a matter of policy that out of seven (07) Annual Confidential Reports are to be considered whilst determining the merits for promotion, five (05) Confidential Reports should be considered with 55% and above marks and there should not be any disciplinary action pending or punishment enforced against the incumbent officer. It has been a matter of policy that out of seven (07) Annual Confidential Reports are to be considered whilst determining the merits for promotion, five (05) Confidential Reports should be considered with 55% and above marks and there should not be any disciplinary action pending or punishment enforced against the incumbent officer. 4.1 He has further submitted the details of Confidential Reports of the petitioner from 1995 to 2000, which are as under : S. No. Confidential Reports for the year Rating in percentage 1 1995 57 2 1996 50 3 1997 50 4 1998 53 5 1999 50 6 2000 50 He has submitted that the petitioner was not having more than 55% marks in five or more Annual Confidential Reports, therefore, the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003. 4.2 He has further submitted that in the year 1985, a policy decision was taken that while considering the case for promotion to the post where merit-cum-seniority is the criteria, Confidential Reports of minimum 5 years are required to be examined of which none should be below good and at least 3 Confidential Reports should be very good or above. Further, there should be no adverse entry as far as integrity in concerned. 4.3 Learned Advocate Mr.Dave has contended that in the year 1991, a decision was taken that the Promotion Committee would consider Confidential Reports of last seven (07) years and out of that, Confidential Reports of at least five (05) years should have 55% marks and above. He has submitted that from the said date, onwards policy of promotion to the post of select grade, i.e., Superintending Engineer and above is required to be filled in by adhering to the said policy of considering the Confidential Reports out of the last seven (07) years, and the Confidential Reports of minimum five (05) years must have rating of 55% and above. 4.4 Thus, he has submitted that since the petitioner could not fulfill the criteria of 55% marks as envisaged in the decision of the Committee. 4.5 It is finally contended by learned Advocate Mr.Dave that the petition cannot be entertained on the ground of delay since, the petitioner is claiming promotion since 2001, and the petition is filed in the year 2007. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. 4.5 It is finally contended by learned Advocate Mr.Dave that the petition cannot be entertained on the ground of delay since, the petitioner is claiming promotion since 2001, and the petition is filed in the year 2007. He has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648 and in the case of C Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining Indus Est, 2008 (10) SCC 115 in support of his contention that the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears, however, the same can be restricted to the period of three years as there was delay in approaching this Court. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. The petitioner was superseded in the year 2001 when the Executive Engineers, who were juniors to the petitioner, were promoted by the order dated 15.11.2001. The petitioner immediately, made a representation on 20.11.2001 stating that he has been illegally superseded since no adverse remarks/memo etc. are communicated to him during his entire career as Executive Engineer nor any disciplinary actions were pending. The case of the petitioner was, thereafter, recommended by the Chief Engineer vide communication dated 02.04.2003 and 02.02.2005. Since the petitioner was not promoted, he approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.16029 of 2005. This Court by the order dated 05.08.2005 had directed the petitioner to approach the respondents and the respondents were hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. It was further clarified that in case the order was against the petitioner, liberty was reserved to him to challenge the same. Thereafter, by the communication dated 30.09.2005, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on two grounds : (i) The petitioner had secured 55% marks below in the C.Rs for the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. (ii) Further there were disciplinary actions, which have been contemplated against him by issuing show-cause notice dated 11.07.2003. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 11.07.2003, nothing further was done after the petitioner had made a representation dated 10.03.2006. (ii) Further there were disciplinary actions, which have been contemplated against him by issuing show-cause notice dated 11.07.2003. 7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 11.07.2003, nothing further was done after the petitioner had made a representation dated 10.03.2006. Thus, the aforesaid issuance of show-cause notice could not have been considered for denying the promotion to the aforesaid post since the same was subsequent to his supersession when his juniors were promoted in the year 2001. As regards the communication of the 55% marks is concerned, the petitioner in his representation dated 20.11.2001 as well as the representation dated 23.01.2006 specifically asserted that no adverse remarks/memo were communicated to him during his entire career as Executive Engineer. Moreover, the petitioner has asserted that there was no criteria of fixing the 55% marks while judging the criteria of meritcum- seniority. He has specifically stated that there are no General Standing Orders (GSO)/Service Rules (SR)/Circulars which lay down the criteria of 55% marks. He has requested to supply the same and the ephemeral rolls as laid down in the Circular No.288 dated 2.8.1978. The same were not supplied to him. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Dave has placed reliance on the decision dated 02.12.1985 produced at Annexure-R2, laying down the guideline, which provides that for filling up of the post of Superintending Engineer by way of promotion, the criteria of seniority-cum-merit is to be applied by considering the Confidential Reports of five (05) years. Reliance is also placed on the Confidential Order dated 10.01.1991 produced at Annexure-R3, wherein, the Committee while deciding the case of five (05) employees has fixed the criteria of rating of 55% marks in the Confidential Reports. The Committee thereafter approved the selection of five (05) employees for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. A specific query was raised by this Court to the learned advocate appearing for the respondent - Board to point out the basis on which the rating of 55% marks has been fixed by the Committee. However, no Regulation/Circular/General Standing Order of the Board has been pointed out. The decision dated 2.12.1985 only lays down the guide line that for filling up the post of Superintending Engineer by way of promotion, the criteria of seniority-cum-merit is to be applied by considering the Confidential Reports of five (05) years. However, no Regulation/Circular/General Standing Order of the Board has been pointed out. The decision dated 2.12.1985 only lays down the guide line that for filling up the post of Superintending Engineer by way of promotion, the criteria of seniority-cum-merit is to be applied by considering the Confidential Reports of five (05) years. However, the same is silent on the criteria of 55% cutoff marks. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated 10.01.1991 passed by the Committee while examining the case of five (05) employees for promotion by applying the criteria of 55% cut-off marks cannot be equated with any General Standing Orders/Service Regulations/Circulars. Such a decision cannot take the shape of GSO/Circulars/Service Regulations. The decision of the committee does not refer to any GSO or the Regulations which prescribes 55% cut-off marks, and hence, the case of the petitioner for promotion cannot be denied on such criteria which is not supported by any Regulation/Circular/General Standing Order of the Board. The other issue of non-communication of the adverse entry in the confidential report gets squarely answered in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra). The Apex Court while examining the issue of communication of adverse remarks has observed thus: “6. We are in complete agreement with the view in Dev Dutt3 particularly paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 37 & 41 as quoted above. We approve the same. 7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others followed Dev Dutt. In paragraph 8 of the Report, this Court with reference to the case under consideration held as under : “Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark “very good” is required for being considered for promotion admittedly the entry of “good” was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of 'good' should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the ACR of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above referred decision relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries “good” if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.” 8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR – poor, fair, average, good or very good – must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period.” 9. In the present case, unquestionably, the petitioner is never communicated that his rating as per confidential report are below 55% marks. The rating of the petitioner below 55% is treated as adverse and hence he was not promoted. Moreover, he is never informed about the decision of the Committee dated 10.1.1991(Annexure’R3’), that his rating will be decided as per the same. Hence, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, every Entry in the confidential report has to be communicated to the employee since such entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. 10. Hence, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, every Entry in the confidential report has to be communicated to the employee since such entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. 10. Thus, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside on two counts, a) the ratings of the petitioner below 55% for the period of 5 years were never communicated which proved fatal for his promotion, and b) No General standing Order/Service Regulation prescribing such ratings has been revealed to this Court. 11. As regards the contention of delay as canvassed by learned advocate Mr.Dave, the same does not merit acceptance since the case of the petitioner was recommended for promotion vide communications dated 02.04.2003 and 02.02.2005, after he immediately represented on 20.11.2001, despite that the respondents did not chose to promote the petitioner and hence, in wake of the present facts, the decision cited by the learned advocate Mr.Dave in case of C Jakob (supra) will not apply. 12. The aforementioned facts imply that the petitioner has been denied promotion illegally without any cogent reasons. Neither the petitioner was communicated his ratings nor the respondents are able to point out any Rules/Regulations/Standing orders which prescribe such ratings. Hence as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2015 SC 2904 , the principle of “No work no pay” would not be attracted where the employee is not granted promotion and he was not allowed to work on the promotional post carrying higher pay-scale if the respondents are at fault in denying the promotion. In such glaring illegality, the arrears cannot be restricted to three years as suggested by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 13. Under the circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to confer the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner from the date when the juniors were promoted. The respondents shall modify the order of promotion dated 25.04.2006 and grant the promotion to the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 15.11.2001, from the date his junior has been promoted. 14. The petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned communications dated 30.09.2005 and 21.11.2006 are hereby quashed and set aside.