(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 973 OF 1999 Madhukar Wamanrao Kulkarni, Age : 60 years, Pensioner, R/o. Bhoom, Taluka : Bhoom, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, through its Chief Executive Officer, District : Osmanabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 (2) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for twofold reliefs. The petitioner firstly prays that he should be granted pay scale of Rs. 335-680 in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 28th January 1982. The petitioner secondly claims for the benefit of time bound promotion in lieu of actual promotion with effect from 1st October 1994, in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 8th June 1995. 2. Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the similarly circumstanced employees were granted pay scale of Rs. 335-680 and, as such, the petitioner could not have been denied that benefit. 3. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the benefit of the time bound promotion scheme has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that his confidential reports are adverse. He, however, submits that, as a matter of fact, his confidential reports are satisfactory and in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply itself, it is stated by the respondent, that the petitioner was awarded additional increment vide order dated 7th February 1992, as his confidential reports were found to be satisfactory. (3) 4. As against this, Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 / Zilla Parishad, submits that in so far as the first relief is concerned, the persons to whom pay scale of Rs. 335-680 was granted, the same was granted on erroneous presumption and subsequently, vide order dated 30th June 1998, the same has been withdrawn. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, he submits that the confidential reports, of the petitioner from the year 1991-92 to 1994-95, were not satisfactory and, as such, the benefit of time bound promotion scheme has not been granted to the petitioner. 5. In so far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, we find that the pay scale of Rs. 335-680, which was granted to other similarly circumstanced employees, the same has been withdrawn vide order dated 30th June 1998. As such, the grievance of the petitioner, on the ground of discrimination, in this regard, does not survive. 6. In so far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the only contention raised on behalf of the Zilla Parishad is that the confidential reports of the petitioner for the period between 1991 to 1994 were not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not granted the benefit of the time bound promotion scheme. (4) 7. Without going into the question, as to whether the confidential reports of the petitioner were satisfactory, or not, we find that the petitioner's grievance, in this respect, is well merited. The Apex Court, in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & others (AIR 2008 SC 2513), has observed thus : " In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non- arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders. " It is, thus, clear that entries in the Annual Confidential Report should be communicated to the concerned employee so that he can make a representation for his upgradation. Admittedly, adverse confidential reports were not communicated (5) to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, cited supra, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of time bound promotion scheme, in lieu of actual promotion. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) Rule is discharged, in so far as prayer clause "B" is concerned. (ii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C". The respondents are further directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner, flowing from time bound promotion to the petitioner, including arrears. The arrears, on this count, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. The arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment. 9. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp973