In a significant ruling on service law and judicial service promotions, the Supreme Court has held that an employer cannot refuse career progression benefits merely because Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are unavailable when the absence of those records is a direct consequence of the employer's own wrongful action. The Court clarified that an employee who was illegally kept out of service cannot be made to suffer because performance reports could not be generated during that period.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the judgment while deciding a miscellaneous application filed by the Rajasthan High Court seeking clarification of an earlier Supreme Court order that had reinstated judicial officer Abhay Jain with continuity of service, seniority and consequential benefits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Abhay Jain, who was appointed as a District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service in 2013, was discharged from service in 2016. In March 2022, the Supreme Court set aside that discharge order, holding that he should be reinstated with continuity of service, seniority and all consequential benefits, while limiting his back wages to 50 percent.
Following his reinstatement, Jain sought the benefit of Selection Scale and Super Time Scale. However, the Rajasthan High Court pointed out that his ACRs for six of the seven relevant years were unavailable because he had remained out of service during that period. Unsure whether the earlier Supreme Court directions automatically entitled him to those service benefits, the High Court sought clarification from the apex court.
The Full Court later found him unsuitable for Selection Scale and Super Time Scale, relying on the absence of the required number of ACRs. That decision brought the matter back before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court framed the central question as whether the earlier order granting "all consequential benefits" also included Selection Scale and Super Time Scale even when the required ACRs were unavailable.
Answering the question in the affirmative, the Bench held that the missing ACRs were not attributable to the judicial officer. Instead, they resulted solely from the employer's own decision to discharge him from service, a decision that had already been declared unsustainable.
The Court observed:
“The law does not permit a party to derive an advantage from its own wrongful act.”
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that where an employee is wrongfully kept away from work, consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion or pay progression cannot be denied merely because the employee could not satisfy conditions made impossible by the employer's own conduct.
The Court further held that where valid ACRs are unavailable due to reasons beyond the employee's control, the assessment should be based on the remaining available and valid ACRs rather than rejecting the claim altogether.
Assessment Based on Available Records
The Bench also noted that its 2022 judgment had already found no material showing unsatisfactory performance by the judicial officer before his discharge. It had further held that the non-communication of his 2015 ACR was arbitrary and that the discharge could not be justified on that basis.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that only the valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014 (Part I and Part II), containing "Very Good" and "Good" gradings along with integrity certificates, should be considered for evaluating his entitlement to Selection Scale and Super Time Scale.
The Bench observed:
“The opponent shall be entitled to the grant of the Selection Scale and Super Time Scale with effect from the dates on which he first became due for such consideration.”
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the clarification sought, the Supreme Court held that Abhay Jain was entitled to Selection Scale with effect from 16 July 2018 and Super Time Scale with effect from 16 July 2021, the dates on which he became eligible in the normal course of service.
The Court further directed the Rajasthan High Court to re-fix his pay, revise all consequential service benefits and compute arrears by giving effect to the earlier direction restricting back wages to 50 percent. The entire exercise has been ordered to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment.
The miscellaneous application was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Abhay Jain (Arising out of Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022)
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 2228 of 2026 (Arising out of Diary No. 17219 of 2024)
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Decision Date: 29 July 2026
