Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 29, 2026, held that a judicial officer illegally terminated from service cannot be denied higher judicial pay scales on the ground that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are missing for the period he remained out of work due to the employer's own wrong.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that an employer cannot take advantage of its own wrongful act to defeat the consequential service benefits of an exonerated employee.

The opponent, Abhay Jain, was appointed as a District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2013 and was wrongfully discharged in January 2016. In March 2022, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, setting aside his discharge and ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service, seniority, and 50% back wages. When the Rajasthan High Court later considered him for Selection Scale and Super Time Scale, it kept his case in abeyance and sought clarification, citing a lack of ACRs for six out of the preceding seven years.

The primary question before the court was whether consequential benefits awarded upon reinstatement include the grant of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale despite the non-availability of the requisite number of ACRs. The court was also called upon to determine whether the missing ACR period could be used to the employee's prejudice when the absence was entirely attributable to the employer's wrongful termination.

Employer Cannot Profit From Its Own Wrong "Employer cannot take advantage of its own wrong"

The court emphasized that the foundational rationale in service jurisprudence is that an employee cannot be prejudiced by circumstances for which they bear no responsibility. Relying on the landmark rulings in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman and Central Bank of India v. Dragendra Singh Jadon, the bench reiterated that wrongful termination cannot become a legal shield for the administration to deny promotions and pay upgrades.

Assessment Based On Available Valid ACRs "Entitlement assessed on the basis of remaining valid ACRs"

Citing precedents like Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. UPSC and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, the bench held that where ACRs are missing or uncommunicated due to administrative default, the employee's case must be evaluated on the basis of available valid entries. The court noted that the uncommunicated 2015 ACR and subsequent missing reports could not be deployed against the judicial officer, whose service record for 2013 and 2014 stood rated as "Very Good" and "Good" with unblemished integrity certificates.

Ratio Decidendi and Final Directions "Full effect to reinstatement and consequential benefits"

The ratio decidendi of the ruling is that the relief of reinstatement with "all consequential benefits" necessarily encompasses statutory pay progressions like Selection Scales and Super Time Scales, which cannot be defeated by administrative impediments created by the employer's illegal discharge. The apex court directed the Rajasthan High Court to grant the Selection Scale effective from July 16, 2018, and the Super Time Scale effective from July 16, 2021, computing arrears in terms of the 50% back wages direction within three months.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2026