The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that non-availability of annual confidential reports (ACRs) cannot be made the sole basis to deny assured career progression (ACP) benefits.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted selective denial to similarly situated employees on this ground was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, when juniors had already been granted identical benefits.“The absence of ACRs in an employee’s service record cannot be cited as a valid ground to deny service benefits, particularly when such absence is attributable to the employer’s own administrative practice,” Justice Brar asserted.Referring to a “precedent” judgment, Justice Brar asserted that the ACRs were not “earned” by an employee, but are required to be recorded by the competent authorities. Any failure on the part of the reporting officers cannot operate to the prejudice of the employee.The case before Justice Brar’s Bench was filed by two employees who initially joined the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) on November 1, 1986, and December 18, 1990, respectively. They were later deputed to the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation. Their services were regularised from November 6, 2001, upon their repatriation.After regularisation, they became eligible to be considered for the ACP benefits in the cadre of Pump Operator, which provided financial upgradation upon completion of specified years of satisfactory service.Their claim, however, was rejected through an office order dated December 18, 2025, primarily on the ground that ACRs were not available in their service records, and, therefore, the employees could not be assessed for grant of ACP benefits.The petitioners challenged the decision, contending that the very basis of rejection was flawed since similarly situated employees, including a junior, had already been granted the benefit despite identical circumstances.Justice Brar added once the benefit of ACP had been extended to a junior employee regularised from the same date, “there exists no justifiable basis to deny the same to the petitioners”.