SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by non grant of super time scale with effect from 1.3.1995 and also the adverse entry recorded for the year 1994-95 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.6.2000 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).
(2.) THE petitioner was working as Branch Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited. For the year 1994-95, it appears that he was granted an adverse entry by Reviewing Officer which was communicate to him by the District Manager, U.P. Cooperative Rural Development Bank Ltd., Lucknow requiring him to submit representation if any. By another order dated 19.6.2000, he has been informed that due to adverse entry recorded for the year 1994-95, he could not have been granted super time scale fell due on 1.3.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order dated 19.6.2000 as also the adverse entry communicated to him by letter dated 9.5.2000 primarily on the following two grounds : (1)Communication of adverse entry after almost five years is illegal and, therefore, it cannot stand in the way of the petitioner for consideration of his case for promotion or grant of higher pay scale etc. in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. P.C. Wadhwa and others 1987 (2) SCC 602. (2)The super time scale fell due to the petitioner on 1.5.1995 and till then there was no adverse entry existing in the service record of the petitioner. An entry which came to saw the light of the day subsequently cannot be made basis to deny him higher pay scale which fell due in earlier point of time.
(3.) SRI Siddiqui,learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner's performance was not satisfactory. The grant of super time scale is not automatic but depends upon the satisfactory service. Since the petitioner was awarded an adverse entry, when his matter was taken up for consideration for grant of super time scale, the authorities having considered the said adverse entry for the year 1994-95 are well justified in refusing to grant super time scale to the petitioner. He further submitted that mere delay in communication of adverse entry would not vitiate the same. He also submitted that the super time scale fell due to the petitioner on 1.3.1995 and the adverse entry for the year 1994-95, i.e, for the period from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1995 was recorded within a very short time from the date the super time scale fell due and, therefore, the authorities were justified not to grant the same.;