ACR Entries That Affect Promotion Must Be Shared With the Employee; Secret Grading Cannot Be Used to Deny Career Benefits

Case Name: Dr. Indira Saranath v. Union of India and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC 553

Date of Judgment/Order: 26 May 2026

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Held: The Supreme Court held that non-communication of ACR entries can cause serious civil consequences when such entries affect an employee’s promotion prospects, and an employee who had demanded her ACRs cannot be denied fair consideration merely because the entries were not formally treated as adverse. The Court held that where the appellant’s ACRs were not supplied despite request, her service records were weeded out during pendency of judicial proceedings, and fractional marks were awarded without any enabling provision in the promotion policy, prejudice was clearly caused to her. The Court drew an adverse inference against the Railway Board and held that the appellant was entitled to notional promotion benefits in the Higher Administrative Grade for pensionary purposes.

Summary: The appellant, an officer in the Indian Railway Medical Service, challenged denial of promotion to the post of Chief Medical Director in Higher Administrative Grade after officers junior to her were promoted. The Selection Committee had applied the Railway Board’s benchmark of “Very Good Plus” and found her unsuitable, though her ACR grading for the relevant five years was “Very Good”. The Tribunal and the Delhi High Court rejected her claim. Before the Supreme Court, she argued that her ACRs were never communicated despite her request, that her service records were destroyed during the pendency of litigation, and that the Selection Committee had awarded 19.5 marks without any provision permitting fractional assessment. The Supreme Court held that the Railway Board was entitled to prescribe its own promotion benchmark and was not bound by DoPT circulars unless adopted by the Railways. However, applying the principles in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, the Court held that every ACR entry affecting promotion prospects must be communicated, and the appellant had been unfairly prejudiced by non-supply of ACRs, destruction of records and unexplained fractional marking.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 22.05.2007 and the Delhi High Court dated 09.01.2009, and held the appellant entitled to notional promotion in the Higher Administrative Grade of INR 22,400–24,500 in the Indian Railway Medical Service. The Court directed that she shall receive pensionary benefits and other admissible benefits in that grade, with arrears to be paid within two months. However, since the Court did not have the benefit of examining the destroyed service records, it declined to grant arrears of salary from the notional promotion date till superannuation. The appeal was allowed with parties left to bear their own costs, and the pending interlocutory application was disposed of.