ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have considered the matter. 3. The Appellant alongwith one M.L. Kharche had filed an O.A. No. 2461/1989 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, alleging non assignment of proper seniority in the seniority list of State Forest Service Officers issued on 1 st April, 1988 vide memo dated 14 th September, 1988. Appellant and M.L.Kharche had sought direction for the refixation of seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in other similar cases and consequent promotion to the post of Extra Assistant Conservator of Forest and induction into the Indian Forest Service ( IFS for short), which was denied because of lower position assigned to them in the seniority list. 4. The application was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18 th January, 2002 with the directions, which read: Based on this revised seniority their cases for further promotion to the next higher post and appointment to the Indian Forest Service shall be considered from the date from which any one of their juniors was considered for promotion/appointment to the Indian Forest Service and if found fit they shall be given such promotion/appointment in the Indian Forest Service with consequential benefit of pay fixation. 5. Challenge by the State of Madhya Pradesh in a writ proceeding (W.P. No. 3047/2002) was dismissed by the Division Bench. Belated SLP (Civil) No. CC7782/2011 filed by the State was dismissed on the ground of delay. 6. Thus, the directions given by the Tribunal in its order dated 18 th January, 2002 have attained finality. 7. In compliance with this order of the Tribunal, M.L. Kharche was granted promotion to the IFS but the Appellant was denied promotion/appointment inspite of the State Government requesting the Union Public Service Commission to consider the case of the Appellant for inclusion in IFS as a 1981 allottee. Thereupon, the Appellant filed the aforesaid Contempt Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in which he had, inter alia, relied upon promotion granted to one C.L. Ohari contending that he was less meritorious than the Appellant. 8. The contention of the respondents was that the review Departmental Promotion Committee held on 13 th June, 2014 had rejected his case for inclusion to IFS in view of his grading in the Annual Confidential Reports ( ACR for short). 8. The contention of the respondents was that the review Departmental Promotion Committee held on 13 th June, 2014 had rejected his case for inclusion to IFS in view of his grading in the Annual Confidential Reports ( ACR for short). Therefore, one V.P. Gujral was rightly selected. The Appellant had contested this assertion on the ground that C.L. Ohari who had received the same performance grading as the Appellant was granted the IFS cadre. Appellant was entitled to similar treatment. 9. Admittedly, the basis of rejection i.e. the ACR gradings were never communicated to the Appellant, who therefore had no opportunity to contest the below par grading. This court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India , (2008) 8 SCC 725 has held that all public employees shall be entitled to know gradings in the confidential reports to enable them to make representation to the authority concerned who must decide such representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. Such non communication would be arbitrary and result in grave injustice depriving many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness a fair chance of promotion. Appellant therefore should not be denied induction into IFS, in view of below par grading in the ACR. 10. It is in this context and background that we would hold that the Division Bench in the contempt petition vide its order dated 14 th February, 2017 had rightly directed the respondents to consider the Appellant at par with C.L. Ohari and grant him benefits with effect from the date granted to C.L. Ohari. The respondents never filed any review application and/or Special Leave Petition to challenge this order and the directions. Nevertheless, by the impugned order dated 27 th April, 2018 another Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after framing of questions on the correctness of the order dated 14 th February, 2017 have referred the terms contained therein for its consideration to a larger Bench observing that the respondents had raised a plausible defence and hence, no case of wilful disobedience was made out. Seniority of C.L. Ohari was not disputed by the appellant in the original application. 11. Seniority of C.L. Ohari was not disputed by the appellant in the original application. 11. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case and the long efflux of time relating back to 1989 when the litigation first started and the age of the appellant who is 85 years old, we are inclined to concur with the directions given by the Division Bench in the order dated 14 th February, 2017 in Case No. Conc 196/2009 and that the reference to a larger Bench by impugned order dated 27 th April, 2018 was not justified and required. Decision of the Tribunal dated 18 th January, 2002, has attained finality. Order dated 14 th February, 2017 had merely given effect to this order of the Tribunal. ACR grading cannot be a ground to refuse and deny induction into IFS. 12. In the peculiar facts of the case we would hold and direct that the respondents should comply with the directions given by the Division Bench in its order dated 14 th February, 2017 in letter and spirit. Accordingly, we would direct that the Appellant shall be granted the benefits of promotion to the IFS cadre from the date of promotion granted to C.L. Ohari. Consequential orders will be passed by the respondents on the basis on the strength of this order within four weeks from today. Payment would be made within four weeks thereafter and the aforesaid directions had been issued in view of the peculiar facts of the case as noticed above. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.