ORDER : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) : 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10 (i) to call for records pertaining to the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court. (ii) to direct respondent to forthwith pay to petitioner the arrears of 'time scale pay' as contained in list dated 14.10.2010 (contained in annx. P-4) in which petitioner's name is at Sr. No. 2 along with interest @ 10% p.a. till date of payment. (iii) to direct respondents to pay cost of litigation. (iv) to grant any other relief deemed fit and proper by the Honble High Court in the interest of justice.” (v) to set aside part of annexure P/5 containing decision of committee dated 13.03.2013 to the extent of S no.1 as also earlier like decisions denying benefit of time scale pay to the petitioner.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially, the petitioner was posted to the post of Assistant Manager in the year 1981, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in the year 1985. He further submitted that while the petitioner was posted as Manager, he was charge-sheeted on 02.09.2004 and after completion of the Departmental Enquiry, he was inflicted with punishment of Rs. 1 lakh and sanction vide order dated 28.01.2011. He also submitted that Rs. 1 lakh was recovered from the pensionary dues on 31.01.2011 and on that very date, the petitioner got retired from the services on account of attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that an appeal was preferred against the order dated 28.01.2011 and the order of punishment of sanction was upgraded by the appellate authority on 13.07.2012. The petitioner made representations claiming therein payment of arrears of 'time scale pay' on 13.07.2012 and 10.01.2013. The petitioner obtained certain note sheets through the Right To Information Act, 2005 and came to know that as the penalty of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and sanction, was imposed upon him, he was not found eligible to get the benefit of 'time scale pay'. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was found eligible to get 'time scale pay' for the post of General Manager. He further contended that in the supplementary return, the respondents have admitted the fact that pursuant to the punishment, the amount of Rs. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was found eligible to get 'time scale pay' for the post of General Manager. He further contended that in the supplementary return, the respondents have admitted the fact that pursuant to the punishment, the amount of Rs. 1 lakh was already adjusted from the retiral dues and the order of punishment is not in existence. He also contended that for the first time, it was disclosed that in the Annual Confidential Report (for short, ACR) pertaining to the years 1993 to 1997 (5 years), there were adverse remarks, therefore, the petitioner was not found fit for payment of 'time scale pay'. He argued that this fact was disclosed and that those ACRs were never communicated to the petitioner. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others v. G. R. Meghwal reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1291, in support of his arguments. 3) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He submitted that there were adverse remarks entered in the ACRs pertaining to the years 1999 and 1994. He further submitted that there were adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner pertaining to the year 1993 and for the year 1994 there was ‘B’ grading, on that ground the benefit of 'time scale pay' was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2024. He also submitted that though the order was placed on record on 29.07.2024, the same has not been avoided by the petitioner. 4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5) The order dated 26.07.2024 was placed on record on 29.07.2024 and therefore, the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to avoid that order. Further, there is no need to avoid that order when the petitioner has claimed the benefit of 'time scale pay' which was denied to him on account of certain adverse entries made in his ACRs of the years 1993 and 1994. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. R. Meghwal (supra), while dealing with a similar issue held that on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs, no adverse decisions affecting the rights of an employee can be taken by the department/employer. Relevant paras 13 & 17 are reproduced as under:- “13. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. R. Meghwal (supra), while dealing with a similar issue held that on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs, no adverse decisions affecting the rights of an employee can be taken by the department/employer. Relevant paras 13 & 17 are reproduced as under:- “13. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra); subsequent decision in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) and in the case of Sukhdev Singh (supra) is concerned, it is submitted by Ms. Divan, learned ASG that none of the aforesaid decisions shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that in fact after the decision of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), the department issued two O.M.s dated 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010 and the opportunity to the employee/officer against the below benchmark ACR was given. It is submitted that even otherwise in the aforesaid decisions, either the ACRS were not communicated at all or it was found that adverse remarks suffer from inconsistency or lack of bona fides. 17. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) and Sukhdev Singh (supra), it is urged that as observed and held by this Court an opportunity to make representation against the adverse remarks/below benchmark has to be given within a reasonable time. That in the present case, such an opportunity was not given within a reasonable time and even otherwise on facts also when the very reporting officer/reviewing authority gave "Very Good" in the previous years and in the subsequent year all of a sudden gave below benchmark "Good", it is rightly directed to ignore the below benchmark "Good". 7) In the present case, though the petitioner was entitled to get 'time scale pay', the same has been denied on the ground that ACRs of the petitioner pertaining to the years 1993 & 1994 are not up to the mark; there is no document to demonstrate that those ACRs were communicated to the petitioner, in the absence of any such material on the record, in the opinion of this Court, in light of G. R. Meghwal (supra), those ACRs cannot be used against the petitioner. 8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the grant of 'time scale pay' strictly in accordance with law from the date when it became due keeping in mind the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G. R. Meghwal (supra). Further, the uncommunicated ACRs would not come in the way, if the petitioner is entitled otherwise. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get 'time scale pay', the issue of interest shall be considered by the department. 9) Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed.