top of page

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs Abhay Jain 2026 INSC 762

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?


... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.

🔒 Premium Legal Resource

This is a 20% curated summary of the judgment. Gain unrestricted access to our full database of expert case analyses, core legal frameworks, and downloadable analytical PDFs by upgrading to a Lawcurb membership. Join our legal network to unlock this entire record.

Copyright © 2026 Lawcurb.in

bottom of page