ORDER : 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the action on the part of the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner was not granted the benefit of time scale pay in view of circulars dated 28.04.2008 & 17.03.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 10.09.1997 and joined his service on 07.10.1997. On 06.10.1999, petitioner successfully completed the period of probation. The petitioner completed more than 15 years of his service, but till date he has not been granted the single promotion. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh framed the scheme known as "Time Bond Promotion Scheme". According to the said scheme, an employee, who has completed 12 years of his service would be entitled for the benefit of time scale pay and after completion of his 24 years of his service, he would be granted the further benefit of time scale pay. The State of Chhattisgarh vide notification dated 28.04.2008 took a policy decision to grant the benefit of time scale pay to the Government employee (gazetted officer, class-II) after completion of 8 years of his service and 16 years of his service, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed in the year 1997 and completed his 8 years of service and, therefore he should have been entitled for benefit of first time scale pay as on 01.04.2006. The employees, who were juniors to the petitioner, have already been granted the benefit of time scale pay vide order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P/2). Annexure P/3 is the copy of the relevant portion of the seniority list of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons showing the position as on 01.04.2009 and in the said list, the name of the petitioner is at serial no. 224. The employees appointed after 1997 have already been granted the benefit of time scale pay. According to the general instructions issued by the department, the criteria for promotion from class-II to class-I is seniority subject to fitness. The information furnished under the Right to Information Act dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P/5) shows that the criteria for promotion was seniority subject to fitness and the confidential role of preceding five years will be considered. According to the general instructions issued by the department, the criteria for promotion from class-II to class-I is seniority subject to fitness. The information furnished under the Right to Information Act dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P/5) shows that the criteria for promotion was seniority subject to fitness and the confidential role of preceding five years will be considered. When the department issued the order dated 30.09.2009, the petitioner made a representation to the department for grant of benefit of time scale pay. Annexure P/6 is the copies of the representations made by the petitioner for redressal of his grievances from 2009 to 2012. The Joint Director informed the petitioner vide its letter dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure P/7) that in view of the recommendation of the departmental scrutiny committee, the petitioner was not found fit for grant of time scale pay though he has completed 8 years of his service. The petitioner was informed that due to adverse entry in the confidential role of the petitioner, he was not granted the benefit of time scale pay, but at no point of time, any adverse report in the confidential role was communicated to the petitioner and no opportunity to improve his work or conduct was afforded. Despite repeated requests, the copies of the confidential role/adverse entry, were not supplied to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders against the respondent authorities and they may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annex.P/1) and the authorities may kindly be directed to decide the representations of the petitioner (Annex.P/6) in light of the aforesaid circular dated 28.04.2008 within a stipulated time, and the petitioner may also kindly be granted all the consequential benefits. 2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and the communication dated 08.11.2010 (Annex.P/7) may also kindly be set aside.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is entitled for benefit of time scale pay with effect from 01.04.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is entitled for benefit of time scale pay with effect from 01.04.2006. The petitioner has been working in the department for more than 15 years and is holding all the requisite qualifications for promotion on the post of Deputy Director and from last more than 15 years, he has not been granted the single promotion. All the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who were juniors to the petitioner, have already been granted the benefit of time scale pay and the petitioner has wrongly been denied the said benefit. The petitioner was informed that due to adverse entry in the confidential role of the petitioner, he was not granted the benefit of time scale pay, but at no point of time, any adverse report in the confidential role was communicated to the petitioner and no opportunity to improve his work or conduct was afforded. The well settled principles of natural justice are that the adverse report in a confidential role cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities, unless it is communicated to the person concerned, so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. According to the well settled law such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object partially being to unable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the concerned person, whether the adverse report is justified. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of time scale pay. According to the general instructions issued by the department, the criteria for promotion from class-II to class-I is seniority subject to fitness. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 10.09.1997 and joined his service on 07.10.1997, thereafter successfully completed the period of probation on 06.10.1999. The petitioner has completed more than 15 years of his service, but till date he has not been granted the single promotion. The Communication dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure P/7) is also illegal and arbitrary and till date no order has been passed by the State Government on the representations of the petitioner. In the year 2013, the petitioner would be entitled for benefit of second time scale pay. The Communication dated 08.11.2010 (Annexure P/7) is also illegal and arbitrary and till date no order has been passed by the State Government on the representations of the petitioner. In the year 2013, the petitioner would be entitled for benefit of second time scale pay. The petitioner has wrongly been denied the benefit of time scale pay. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/1) as also decide the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/6 Colly) in light of aforesaid circular. 4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India; 2008 LawSuit(SC) 846 in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002 decided on 12.05.2008 & this Court’s order dated 09.10.2023 passed in the matter of Dr. Veena Tripathi W/o. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh; Commissioner Higher Education Directorate of Higher Education; Principal Government Pt Jawaharlal Nehru Arts and Science College; 2023 LawSuit (Chh) 887 in WP(S) No. 7053 of 2016. 5. Learned counsel for respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that during the pendency of the instant petition, the main relief as sought by the petitioner has been extended to him vide order dated 14/02/2013 (Annexure R/1) whereby the next higher pay scale of Rs.10,000-325-15,200/- (Revised pay scale of Rs.15,600-39100/- + grade pay Rs.6600/-) has been granted to the petitioner after completion of prescribed period. Therefore, the instant petition rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner completed 16 years of his service on 06.10.2013 and he has already been granted second time bond promotion/time scale pay vide its order dated 08.01.2015 (Annexure P/10). The name of the petitioner is at serial No 33. If the period of 16 years have been counted from 1997, then the 8 years should have been counted on 01.04.2006 instead of 07.10.2010. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 10.09.1997 and joined his service on 07.10.1997 and therafter, he completed the period of probation on 06.10.1999. 9. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 10.09.1997 and joined his service on 07.10.1997 and therafter, he completed the period of probation on 06.10.1999. 9. According to learned counsel for the respondents, during the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner has been granted time scale pay vide order dated 14.02.2013 (Annexure-R/1) and in the said order, the joining date of the petitioner was mentioned as 07.10.1997, public service commission selection date was mentioned as 10.09.1997 & Second Higher Pay Scale Due Date was mentioned as 07.10.2010. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected on the ground that some doctors have been given pay scale with effect from 01.04.2006 and the petitioner also completed 8 years and 16 years in department, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to second time scale pay with effect from 01.04.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents did not rebut the said fact as also did not file any adverse remarks of the petitioner. 11. In the matter of Dr. Veena Tripathi W/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh; Commissioner Higher Education Directorate of Higher Education; Principal Government Pt Jawaharlal Nehru Arts and Science College; 2023 LawSuit (Chh)887, this Court after observing various judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, Vide order dated 09.10.2023 held in para 21 as under:- “21. Since the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated within the stipulated time period and as per the circular dated 29.11.1984 and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P.C. Wadhwa (supra), it has lost its significance. Since the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated within the stipulated time period and as per the circular dated 29.11.1984 and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P.C. Wadhwa (supra), it has lost its significance. It is also established from the record that the respondent while deciding the representation of the petitioner for expunging the adverse ACR has not followed the procedure as prescribed in the circular dated 04.01.1979 and also considering the fact that ACR was not communicated within the time period, which has adversely affected the carrier of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent on 2-1-2016 (Annexure P/1) and entry made in the confidential report dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) to record the ACR of the petitioner as "C" (poor) and all the subsequent orders which have been passed in pursuance of the direction given by this court on 26-6-2023 (Annexure R/2) and decision taken by the committed dated 02-6-2023, which has been taken in pursuance of order dated 11.05.2023, wherein this court has directed State to re-examine the order by which petitioner's representation has been rejected, are quashed.” 12. Thus, in light of above discussion and guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the respondents have neither filed any document nor could put forth any circumstance based on which the time scale pay was denied to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner joined his service on 07.10.1997 and completed probation period on 06.10.1999. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in light of circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/1) for grant of time scale pay with effect from 01.04.2006 without considering the ACRs of the petitioner which were not communicated to him and for that if necessary review Screening Committee for grant of time scale pay to the petitioner be constituted within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.