ORDER : 1. The Petitioner by the instant petition seeks following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents/authorities; 10.2 This Hon’ble court further be pleased to issue appropriate direction in pursuance of the letter dated 26.06.2021 by respondent no.4 to the Additional Secretary for consideration of the case of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Block Development Officer on probation for a period of 2 years vide order dated 19.2.1999 (Annexure P1). He joined the services on the said post on 6.3.1999 and also successfully completed his probation period. He was also granted benefit of first time pay scale vide order dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure P5). As per Rules 13 and 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Panchayat and Rural Development (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 1988’), minimum qualifying period for promotion from the post of Block Development Officer to the post of District Development Officer is 8 years and as per the amendment dated 26.7.1996 made in the Rules of 1988 a new post of Additional Assistant Development Commissioner was created and the Block Development Officer was to be promoted as Additional Assistant Development Commissioner in 4 years and subsequently the Additional Assistant Development Commissioner was to be promoted as Deputy Commissioner (Development) after 5 years. Since the yardstick required to be applied for promotion as also for grant of next time pay scale are almost same, instead of granting him time pay scale, the Petitioner should have been extended benefit of promotion as has been done in the case of 9 Block Development Officers vide order dated 30.7.2012 who were juniors to the Petitioner pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting convened on 4.7.2012. The promotion of the Petitioner has been denied by the DPC on the ground of non-availability of his annual confidential reports (ACRs). The case of the Petitioner has not been considered and his case has been kept in abeyance for the reason that the department has not placed the ACRs of the Petitioner before the DPC. The promotion of the Petitioner has been denied by the DPC on the ground of non-availability of his annual confidential reports (ACRs). The case of the Petitioner has not been considered and his case has been kept in abeyance for the reason that the department has not placed the ACRs of the Petitioner before the DPC. The Petitioner has made multiple applications to the department for granting him promotion, but, the department has not considered his applications. Hence, the instant petition. 3. In the return, the Respondents/State made pleadings that the Petitioner is required to submit his self assessment report before his immediate controlling officer who will then forward the same to further higher officers, i.e., reporting officer, reviewing officer and finally accepting officer. The Petitioner failed to submit his assessment in prescribed format, therefore, the ACRs available with the department of the Petitioner are of the years 2002, 2003, 2009, 2017, 2018 and 2021 only. Various letters were also sent to the Petitioner to furnish copies of the ACRs if available with him, but, nothing has been provided by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the petition of the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that promotion of the Petitioner has not been considered only on account of non-availability of his annual confidential reports (ACRs) for the years from 2007 to 2010. He further submits that grant of time pay scale is equivalent to promotion and the person is only entitled to time pay scale when he possesses all equivalent qualifications for promotion. The time pay scale has already been granted to the Petitioner. Meaning thereby, the Petitioner fulfills all the qualifications required for promotion. Therefore, he was entitled to get promotion instead of time pay scale. Once the department granted him time pay scale, means the Petitioner was fit for promotion also. But, his promotion has wrongly been denied on the ground of non-availability of his ACRs for the years from 2007 to 2010. The DPC meeting was convened on 29.7.2012 and the department asked the Petitioner on 14.6.2021 and 13.5.2022 for providing copies of his ACRs of the years from 2003 to 2007 and from 2015 to 2020, i.e., much after of the DPC meeting. The DPC meeting was convened on 29.7.2012 and the department asked the Petitioner on 14.6.2021 and 13.5.2022 for providing copies of his ACRs of the years from 2003 to 2007 and from 2015 to 2020, i.e., much after of the DPC meeting. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that there is nothing on record to indicate as to whether the Petitioner was custodian of the self appraisal forms and there is also nothing on record to show that before convening of the meeting of the DPC the Petitioner was asked to submit self appraisal forms. There is also nothing on record to show that self appraisal forms were not filled up by the Petitioner. Even if it was so, there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was ever asked or directed to submit the required self appraisal forms. Therefore, the ground on the basis of which the Petitioner has not been granted promotion is arbitrary. Thus, it is prayed by the Learned Counsel that the Petitioner is entitled for the promotion from the date when his juniors were granted promotion and further the Petitioner is also entitled for all consequential benefits from the date when his juniors were promoted. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/State, opposing the above arguments, submitted that the Petitioner himself failed to submit the required self appraisal forms to the authorities even after being asked and, therefore, his case was rightly not considered for promotion by the DPC. 6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the entire material available including the record annexed with the writ petition and the return submitted by the State/Respondents. 7. Undisputedly, the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Development Officer on 19.2.1999 vide Annexure P1. Schedule 4 of the Rules of 1988 provides for a minimum qualifying period of 8 years for promotion to the post of District Development Officer from the post of Block Development Officer. According to the amendment dated 26.7.1996 made in the Rules of 1988 a new post of Additional Assistant Development Commissioner was created and the Block Development Officer was to be promoted as Additional Assistant Development Commissioner in 4 years and subsequently the Additional Assistant Development Commissioner was to be promoted as Deputy Commissioner (Development) on completion of qualifying period of 5 years. The Petitioner completed his 8 years of qualifying period on 5.3.2007 and as required by the amendment dated 26.7.1996 he also completed the qualifying period of 4 years for promotion to the post of Additional Assistant Development Commissioner and further at the time of convening of the DPC meeting also he had already completed qualifying period of service for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Development). Instead of giving promotion to the Petitioner, he was granted time pay scale vide order dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure P5). On the recommendation made by the DPC, juniors to the Petitioner were also granted promotion to the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat vide Annexure P6 dated 30.7.2012. 8. A bare perusal of the proceedings of the DPC (Annexure P10) shows that the case of the Petitioner was kept in abeyance and he was not granted promotion only on the ground that his ACRs for the years from 2007 to 2010 were not available with the DPC. A bare perusal of Annexure RJ1, i.e., guidelines dated 5.3.2010 also reveals that the person is only entitled for time pay scale when he possesses all qualifications for promotion. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the said guidelines dated 5.3.2010, which reads as under: ^^rnuqlkj ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd bl ;kstuk ds varxZr le;eku osrueku dk ykHk Ánk; djus ds fy, 'kkldh; lsod ds inksUUkfr gsrq l{ke Ákf/kdkjh gh l{ke gksaxs] muds }kjk lacaf/kr deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh ds foxr 5 o"kZ ds xksiuh; Áfrosnuksa dk ijh{k.k mlh Ádkj fd;k tk,xk ftl Ádkj inksUufr ds Ádj.kksa esa fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mi;qDr ik;s tkus ij gh le;eku osrueku dk ykHk fn;k tk,xkA fdUrq ;fn fdlh 'kkldh; lsod dks ØeksUufr ;kstuk ds varxZr Øe’k% ÁFke rFkk f}rh; ØeksUufr dk ykHk fey pqdk gS rks ,sls ekeyksa esa le;eku osrueku ds varxZr ÁFke vFkok f}rh; mPprj osrueku dh ik=rk dh mi;qDrrk ds fy, xksiuh; Áfrosnuksa ds iqu% ijh{k.k dh vko’;drk ugha gksxh rFkk ,sls ekeyksa esa dk;kZy; Áeq[k ,oa dk;kZy; Áeq[k ds ekeys esa fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh mPprj osruekuksa dk ykHk nsus gsrq l{ke gksaxsA** 9. A perusal of the above-quoted relevant part of the guidelines dated 5.3.2010 reveals that before granting time pay scale last 5 years’ ACRs shall be examined in the manner as is examined for giving promotion and the time pay scale shall be granted only after examination of the ACRs for the last 5 years. Thus, it is clear that before granting time pay scale to the Petitioner vide order dated 25.2.2011 (Annexure P5) the ACRs for the last 5 years of the Petitioner would have been examined. 10. The DPC, only on the ground that the ACRs of the Petitioner for the years from 2007 to 2010 were not available with the DPC, kept in abeyance the matter of promotion of the Petitioner. It is settled law that the preparation and handing over of ACRs is with the employer only. Though as per the stand taken by the Respondents/State the Petitioner had not submitted self appraisal forms for the relevant years to the department, there is nothing on record to indicate as to whether the Petitioner himself was the custodian of the self appraisal forms and whether on failure of the Petitioner to fill up the self appraisal forms did the reporting officer of the Petitioner initiated any remedial action. There is further nothing on record to indicate that assuming the Petitioner failed to submit the self appraisal forms the reporting officer could not have filled up the ACRs of the Petitioner. There is also nothing on record to show that when before convening of the DPC meeting, ACRs of the Petitioner for the relevant years were not available with the DPC, the Petitioner was asked to submit the same. Rather, the Petitioner was asked to submit the same on 14.6.2021 and 13.5.2022 which reflects from Annexure R1 filed by the Respondents/State. Thus, it is clear that after the DPC meeting and after grant of promotion to the juniors of the Petitioner, for the first time after 9 years of convening of the DPC meeting dated 4.7.2012 the Petitioner was asked to submit the aforesaid self appraisal forms/ACRs. 11. Thus, it is clear that after the DPC meeting and after grant of promotion to the juniors of the Petitioner, for the first time after 9 years of convening of the DPC meeting dated 4.7.2012 the Petitioner was asked to submit the aforesaid self appraisal forms/ACRs. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that in the year 2011 the Petitioner was granted benefit of time pay scale and the same was granted after examining his ACRs for the last 5 years and further considering the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner did not fill up the self appraisal forms and even if it was so, there is nothing on record to show that before convening of the DPC meeting the Petitioner was even asked to submit the said self appraisal forms or the reporting officer of the Petitioner took any remedial action in this regard, I am of the view that the instant writ petition of the Petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The Petitioner is held entitled for the promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted on 30.7.2012 and the Petitioner is also held entitled for all the consequential benefits from 30.7.2012 itself like his juniors were granted. The Respondents are directed to do the needful within 90 days from today.