High Court of Judicature for Rajasthanv.Abhay Jain

Employer's Wrongful Act Cannot Deny Consequential Benefits: Supreme Court on Counting ACRs During Wrongful Discharge

Case Snapshot

Case Name: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN v. ABHAY JAIN

Citation: 2026 INSC 762

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Judicial Service, Administrative Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court disposed of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Rajasthan High Court seeking clarification of its earlier judgment dated March 15, 2022, which had ordered the reinstatement of a Judicial Officer with "all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority."

The core issue was whether the Judicial Officer was entitled to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale despite the absence of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for six of the seven years immediately preceding his consideration. The Judicial Officer was wrongfully discharged from service on January 27, 2016, and reinstated on April 13, 2022, following the Supreme Court's intervention. During the intervening period (2016-2021), no ACRs were prepared as he was out of service.

The Supreme Court held that since the non-availability of ACRs was directly attributable to the employer's wrongful discharge, the Judicial Officer could not be penalized for the same. The Court applied the principles from Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal and R.K. Jibanlata Devi, holding that where the absence of requisite ACRs is due to the employer's fault, the employee's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs. The Judicial Officer was entitled to Selection Scale from July 16, 2018, and Super Time Scale from July 16, 2021, based on his valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014.

Relevant Facts

Background: The Judicial Officer (opponent) was appointed in the District Judge Cadre of the Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2013. He was discharged from service on January 27, 2016, following a Full Court resolution.

Challenges: The discharge order was challenged in the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on October 21, 2019.

Supreme Court Intervention: The Judicial Officer filed Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022 before the Supreme Court. By judgment dated March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court quashed the discharge order and directed reinstatement with "all consequential benefits including continuity of service and seniority" and 50% back wages.

Reinstatement: The Judicial Officer was reinstated on April 13, 2022, and his name was inserted in the Seniority List based on his original seniority (2013).

Representation for Super Time Scale: The Judicial Officer made a representation for grant of Super Time Scale. The Higher Judiciary Committee, in its meeting dated May 19, 2023, decided to seek clarification from the Supreme Court, as the ACRs for six years (2016-2021) were not available.

Full Court Meeting: On August 21, 2024, the Full Court of the Rajasthan High Court found the Judicial Officer "not suitable for grant of selection scale or super time scale" for want of requisite ACRs.

Miscellaneous Application: The Rajasthan High Court filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification of the Supreme Court's judgment.

Available ACRs: The Judicial Officer had valid ACRs for 2013 ("Very Good"), 2014 Part I ("Very Good"), 2014 Part II ("Good"), and 2022 ("Very Good"). The ACR for 2015 was held to be invalid as it was uncommunicated and could not form the basis of the discharge.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the "consequential benefits" awarded to the Judicial Officer by the Supreme Court's judgment dated March 15, 2022, would include the grant of Selection Scale or Super Time Scale despite the absence of the requisite number of Annual Confidential Reports?

2. Whether the Judicial Officer could be denied Selection Scale or Super Time Scale for want of ACRs when the absence of such ACRs was attributable to the employer's own wrongful act of discharging him from service?

3. Whether the Judicial Officer's entitlement to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale should be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs?

Legal Framework

• Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (RJS Rules, 2010):
  Rule 49: Grant of selection scale to District Judges—officers with not less than 5 years service shall be granted selection scale on the basis of merit to the extent of 35% of the effective strength.
  Rule 50: Grant of super-time scale to District Judges—officers with not less than three years service in selection scale shall be granted super-time scale on the basis of merit after considering entire service record to the extent of 15% of effective strength.

• Full Court Resolution dated January 15, 2011: Laid down criteria for grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale:
  Selection Scale: Incumbents having at least five "good, very good or outstanding" entries with no adverse remarks in the preceding seven years.
  Super Time Scale: Incumbents having at least two "outstanding or very good" and three "good" entries with no below average entry in the preceding seven years.

• Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951:
  Rule 54: Where an officer has been fully exonerated, the period of absence from duty shall be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Equality before law—non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

• Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India: Protection against dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank without an inquiry.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

1. Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Dragendra Singh Jadon (2022) 8 SCC 378

Held that the employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the employee from service and denying him the benefit of seniority, promotion, and other benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had attended to his duties.

2. Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109

Held that when an employee is completely exonerated and is not blameworthy in the least, he ought not to be deprived of the benefits which would have ordinarily accrued to him in the normal course of service. He is entitled to notional promotion and all consequential benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary proceedings.

3. Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC & Ors. (2015) 14 SCC 427

Held that where ACRs were uncommunicated and invalid, the employee's case for promotion had to be considered on the basis of the communicated and valid ACRs. Uncommunicated ACRs cannot be used to the employee's prejudice.

4. R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur & Ors. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 178)

Held that when certain ACRs are invalid due to non-communication by the employer, the employee deserves to be considered for promotion based on the remaining valid ACRs.

5. Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566

Held that every entry in ACR must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period. Non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Gural Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan (2012) 13 SCC 94

Held that an officer is entitled to be considered for promotion notionally when an officer junior to him was promoted, and would be entitled to all consequential benefits.

7. Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 370

Held that every judicial officer is likely to commit mistakes in the initial stage of service, and if orders are passed without any corrupt motive, they should be overlooked and proper guidance provided.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. The Principle: Employer Cannot Benefit from Its Own Wrong

The Court began by examining the principle that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act to deny benefits to an employee. It relied on K.V. Jankiraman and Dragendra Singh Jadon to establish this principle.

The Court's Observation:

"The consequential benefits of seniority, pay, promotion and the like, cannot be refused merely because fulfillment of the eligibility conditions had been rendered impossible by the employer's own wrongful act of causing impediment in the service tenure of the employee."

The Underlying Rationale: An employee cannot be prejudiced by circumstances for which he bears no responsibility and which have subsequently been found to be unjustified.

II. The Wrongful Discharge

The Court referred to its earlier judgment (subject judgment) to establish that the Judicial Officer was wrongfully discharged.

Key Findings from the Subject Judgment:

• The Judicial Officer may have been guilty of negligence in not carefully going through the case file, but this negligence could not be treated as misconduct.

• There was no material to showcase unsatisfactory performance under Rules 45 and 46 of the RJS Rules, 2010.

• The non-communication of ACRs was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

• The adverse comments in the 2015 ACR could not have been the basis for discharge.

• There was no allegation of illegal gratification or extraneous consideration.

The Court's Conclusion: "The opponent was wrongfully discharged from service."

III. Absence of ACRs is Attributable to the Employer

The Court held that the non-availability of ACRs for the period 2016-2021 was the direct consequence of the employer's wrongful action.

The Court's Reasoning:

• The Judicial Officer could not have earned the requisite number of ACRs for the relevant period since he was kept out of service by the employer.

• The absence of ACRs was not attributable to any omission, default, or deficiency on the part of the Judicial Officer.

• The employer cannot rely upon a shortcoming which it itself created to deny the Judicial Officer consequential service benefits.

The Court's Observation:

"It would be manifestly unjust to permit the applicant to rely upon a shortcoming which it itself created in order to deny the opponent of the consequential service benefits that would otherwise have accrued to him. The law does not permit a party to derive an advantage from its own wrongful act."

IV. Assessment on the Basis of Remaining Valid ACRs

The Court applied the principles from Prabhu Dayal and R.K. Jibanlata Devi to hold that the Judicial Officer's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs.

The Court's Reasoning:

• When the requisite number of valid ACRs are not available due to the employer's fault, that should not make the employee ineligible.

• The evaluations for the respective pay scale or promotion are to be undertaken based on the remaining ACRs which are valid.

Application to the Present Case:

• The Judicial Officer's valid ACRs were for 2013, 2014 (Part I), and 2014 (Part II).

• The 2015 ACR was uncommunicated and invalid, and could not be relied upon to the detriment of the Judicial Officer.

• The ACRs for 2016-2021 were unavailable due to the employer's wrongful discharge.

The Court's Conclusion: "The opponent's entitlement is required to be assessed on the basis of the valid ACRs and cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of the absence of requisite number of ACRs occasioned solely by the applicant's own wrongful action."

V. Entitlement to Selection Scale

The Court held that the Judicial Officer was entitled to Selection Scale with effect from July 16, 2018.

Reasoning:

• The Judicial Officer was appointed on July 15, 2013.

• He was reinstated with continuity of service and seniority.

• He completed five years of service on July 15, 2018.

• Under Rule 49 of the RJS Rules, 2010, officers with not less than five years service are granted selection scale.

• Officers junior to the Judicial Officer were granted Selection Scale with effect from July 2018 onwards.

The Court's Conclusion: "The opponent is entitled to the grant of Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018."

VI. Entitlement to Super Time Scale

The Court held that the Judicial Officer was entitled to Super Time Scale with effect from July 16, 2021.

Reasoning:

• The Judicial Officer was entitled to Selection Scale from July 16, 2018.

• The period notionally spent in Selection Scale must be reckoned for Super Time Scale.

• Under Rule 50 of the RJS Rules, 2010, officers with not less than three years in selection scale are granted Super Time Scale.

• The Judicial Officer completed three years in selection scale on July 16, 2021.

• Officers junior to the Judicial Officer were granted Super Time Scale with effect from July 2021 onwards.

The Court's Conclusion: "The opponent is entitled to the grant of Super Time Scale with effect from 16.07.2021."

VII. Effect on Back Wages

The Court clarified that the arrears arising from the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale shall be computed subject to the direction in the subject judgment regarding payment of only 50% back wages.

The Court's Direction: The employer shall re-fix the opponent's pay, revise all consequential benefits, and disburse the arrears within three months.

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Employer Cannot Benefit from Its Own Wrongful Act

An employer cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act (such as wrongful discharge) to deny an employee the consequential benefits that would have accrued to the employee in the normal course of service.

2. Absence of ACRs Attributable to Employer Does Not Disentitle Employee

Where the absence of the requisite number of ACRs is attributable to the employer's wrongful act (such as wrongful discharge), the employee cannot be penalized for the same. The employee's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs.

3. Uncommunicated ACRs Cannot Be Used to the Employee's Prejudice

An uncommunicated ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee while determining his entitlement to promotion, pay scale, or any career advancement. Non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

4. Employee Fully Exonerated is Entitled to All Consequential Benefits

Where an employee is completely exonerated and is not blameworthy in the least, he ought not to be deprived of the benefits which would have ordinarily accrued to him in the normal course of service. He is entitled to notional promotion and all consequential benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted.

5. "No Work No Pay" Does Not Apply Where Employer Wrongfully Keeps Employee Away

The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable where the employee, although willing to work, is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his own.

6. Judicial Officers' Mistakes Without Corrupt Motive Should Be Overlooked

Every judicial officer is likely to commit mistakes in the initial stage of service. If orders are passed without any corrupt motive, they should be overlooked and proper guidance should be provided.

7. Consequential Benefits Include Career Advancements

"Consequential benefits" in a reinstatement order include not just continuity of service and seniority, but also career advancements such as Selection Scale, Super Time Scale, and other pay scales that would have accrued to the employee in the normal course.

Important Court Observations

• "The law does not permit a party to derive an advantage from its own wrongful act."

• "The consequential benefits of seniority, pay, promotion and the like, cannot be refused merely because fulfillment of the eligibility conditions had been rendered impossible by the employer's own wrongful act of causing impediment in the service tenure of the employee."

• "It would be manifestly unjust to permit the applicant to rely upon a shortcoming which it itself created in order to deny the opponent of the consequential service benefits that would otherwise have accrued to him."

• "The opponent cannot be made to bear the adverse consequences of the wrongful discharge, by being denied consideration for the grant of the Selection Scale or the Super Time Scale on the ground of non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs, for the period during which he was unlawfully kept out of service."

• "In circumstances where the employee is found to be not responsible for the default, the evaluations for the respective pay scale or promotion are to be undertaken based on the remaining ACRs which are valid."

• "An uncommunicated ACR cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee while determining his entitlement to promotion, pay scale or any career advancement."

Final Outcome

Miscellaneous Application Disposed Of: The Supreme Court disposed of the Miscellaneous Application with the following directions:

Declaration: The Judicial Officer is entitled to the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale in terms of the judgment dated March 15, 2022.

Selection Scale: The Judicial Officer is entitled to Selection Scale with effect from July 16, 2018.

Super Time Scale: The Judicial Officer is entitled to Super Time Scale with effect from July 16, 2021.

Arrears: The arrears arising from the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale shall be computed subject to the direction in the subject judgment regarding payment of 50% back wages.

Timeline: The employer shall re-fix the Judicial Officer's pay, revise all consequential benefits, and disburse the arrears within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Communication: One copy each of the judgment shall be forwarded to all High Courts.

Pending Applications: Disposed of.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Employer Cannot Benefit from Its Own Wrong

The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act to deny benefits to an employee. This is a significant protection for employees who have been wrongfully discharged or dismissed.

2. Absence of ACRs Due to Employer's Fault Does Not Disentitle Employee

The judgment establishes that where the absence of requisite ACRs is attributable to the employer's wrongful act, the employee cannot be penalized for the same. The employee's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of remaining valid ACRs.

3. Uncommunicated ACRs Cannot Be Used Against Employee

The judgment reaffirms that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee. This is in line with the established principle that non-communication of ACRs is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

4. "All Consequential Benefits" Includes Career Advancements

The judgment clarifies that "all consequential benefits" in a reinstatement order includes Selection Scale, Super Time Scale, and other pay scales that would have accrued to the employee in the normal course of service.

5. Protects Judicial Officers from Arbitrary Discharge

The judgment provides significant protection to judicial officers from arbitrary discharge based on uncommunicated ACRs or isolated mistakes without any corrupt motive.

6. Guidance for High Courts

The judgment, which is directed to be forwarded to all High Courts, provides clear guidance on how to handle cases of reinstated judicial officers seeking career advancements.

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Employees/Service Personnel:

• Cite this judgment to claim consequential benefits after reinstatement

• Argue that the employer cannot benefit from its own wrongful act

• Rely on the principle that absence of ACRs due to employer's fault does not disentitle the employee

• Claim that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be used against the employee

For Employers:

• Must ensure timely reinstatement and grant of all consequential benefits

• Cannot deny career advancements on grounds created by the employer's own wrongful act

• Must assess employees on the basis of remaining valid ACRs

• Must communicate all ACRs within a reasonable period

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue for consequential benefits after wrongful discharge

• Rely on the principle that the employer cannot benefit from its own wrong

• Use the judgment to argue that uncommunicated ACRs are invalid

• Cite the judgment to argue for assessment on remaining valid ACRs

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes, absolutely. This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India (2026 INSC 762) and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts (particularly in service matters and judicial service cases)

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• State Administrative Tribunals

• Subordinate courts

• Any authority exercising service jurisdiction

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Employer Cannot Benefit from Wrongful Act

An employer who wrongfully discharges or dismisses an employee cannot later rely on the consequences of that wrongful act (such as absence of ACRs) to deny the employee benefits.

2. Assessment on Remaining Valid ACRs

Where ACRs are unavailable due to the employer's fault, the employee's entitlement must be assessed on the basis of the remaining valid ACRs.

3. Uncommunicated ACRs Are Invalid

Uncommunicated ACRs cannot be relied upon to the detriment of the employee. All ACRs must be communicated within a reasonable period.

4. "All Consequential Benefits" Includes Career Advancements

A reinstatement order with "all consequential benefits" includes Selection Scale, Super Time Scale, and other pay scales that would have accrued in the normal course.

5. Judicial Officers' Mistakes Without Corrupt Motive

Judicial officers who make mistakes without any corrupt motive should not be penalized through discharge. Proper guidance should be provided.

6. No Work No Pay Rule Not Applicable

The normal rule of "no work no pay" does not apply where the employee is kept away from work by the employer for no fault of the employee.

7. Notional Service Counts

Period of wrongful discharge, when the employee is exonerated, counts as period spent on duty for all purposes, including career advancements.

8. Protection Against Arbitrary Discharge

The judgment provides significant protection against arbitrary discharge based on uncommunicated ACRs or isolated mistakes without any corrupt motive.

9. Applicability to All Service Matters

The principles of this judgment apply to all service matters, not just judicial service. Employees in all sectors can rely on these principles.

10. Guidance for High Courts

The direction to forward the judgment to all High Courts ensures that the principles are applied uniformly across the country.