Jharkhand High Court
Bhagwat Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:25563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S). No. 1996 of 2019
-------
Bhagwat Narayan Singh, son of late Ramphal Singh, resident of Mohalla H-6/1, Hume Pipe Road, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand.
........... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Planning Department, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
4. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, R.C.H. Building, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
5. State Malaria/ Filaria Officer, Namkum, R.C.H. Building, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
6. Filaria Officer, Filaria Contro Unit, Jamshedpur, Near Jail Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District (East) Singhbhum.
........... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC(L&C)-I
----
22/ 20.08.2025 In the instant writ application petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
I) Quashing of order issued vide Memo no.954 dated 09/10/18 issued by State Programme i.e. State Malaria/Filaria Office, Namkum, RCH Building P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi (Contained in Annexure-2).
II) Providing 3rd M.A.C.P. Promotion from dated 01/09/2008 and on providing 3rd M.A.C.P. fixation of Pay from 01/09/2008. III) Annual increment from 01/01/2009 to till retirement of petitioner i.e. on 28/02/2015.
IV) After providing 3rd M.A.C.P. and Annual Increment from due date revision of pension is required to be made and should be given from 01/01/2009 to till retirement i.e. on 28/02/2015. Other retiral benefits of the petitioner like, Group Insurance, amount of G.P.F. Gratuity, leave encashment and Pension have been paid to the petitioner.1
2025:JHHC:25563
2. Earlier the petitioner has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1802 of 2018 for getting the benefits of 1st, 2nd ACP/MACP and also annual increments, which was not paid since 01.01.2009 till his retirement i.e. till 28.02.2015 along with other retiral benefits. This Court passed a detailed order with a direction to the respondent- authorities to take a decision taking into account the Resolution No. 4048 F (2) dated 03.06.2003 of Finance Department.
3. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-authorities have rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that Secretary of the Department is the competent authority to issue order of exemption in respect of class III employees and not the Filaria Officer. In paragraph No. 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a plea has been taken that the Departmental Secretary can debar/exempt an employee from departmental examination.
4. It is specific stand of the petitioner that he was granted exemption from passing Hindi, Noting and Drafting examination, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-7. However, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to show that Filaria Officer has ever presented the proposal of exemption before the Secretary and the same was rejected.
It was the duty of the concerned officer to produce exemption letter before the competent authority for approval. The order of Finance Department clearly shows that approval of exemption has to be given by the Secretary of the Department.
5. The matter was taken-up on 20.01.2020, wherein this Court directed to the respondents to file specific affidavit as to why the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered.
6. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on 26.04.2022, wherein at paras- 5 to 7, it has been stated as under:
"5. That the answering respondent states that ACP/MACP Scheme as proposed by the state was to be given to the employees who have passed their Hindi Drafting and Noting Exam within 1 (one) year of their employment and as a matter of fact the petitioner has not passed the said exam even till his superannuation from the services.2
2025:JHHC:25563
6. That the answering respondent states that as per the rules framed by the State Government without passing the Hindi Drafting and Noting Exam, no yearly increment, ACP/MACP can be given to any of the employees and hence the petitioner was not given benefits of 1st, 2nd or 3rd MACP.
7. That That the answering respondent states that the letter no. 131 RA dated 18.05.2017, issued by Rajbhasha Vibhag, State of Jharkhand, has specifically provided the posts which are exempted from passing Departmental Exam and post of Tim Smith is not included in the same."
7. As a matter of fact, the issue with regard to passing of departmental examination, Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, etc. has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1. It further transpires that in the case of Somnath Ojha Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. with analogous cases2 this issue was again considered and as a matter of fact, in the case of Somnath Ojha (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court has framed four issues in which Issue No. 2 is relevant in this case and the same has been dealt in para-21 of the said judgment. For brevity paras-21 to 25 of the judgment passed in the case of Somnath Ojha (supra), is extracted herein below:
21. The stand of the State is that mistake committed by the Department / State can be rectified at any moment. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are of the peculiar facts of those cases. No doubt corrections / rectifications by the employer are permissible, if there is apparent error on the face of the record. However, in the present case, it is not a case of mere correction in taking away the benefits which has accrued to the petitioners during the service tenure, though the petitioners have passed the departmental examination belatedly.
Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the respondents are of no help to the respondents and the issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.
Re : Issue no. 2 (whether passing of departmental examination is mandatory requirement for grant of ACP/MACP benefits, and Re: Issue no. 3: Whether the requisite qualification prescribed for regular promotion is also a condition must for extending the benefits of financial up-gradation?
22. These issues fell for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. (supra), wherein all the aspects of the matter in respect of grant of ACP/MACP and the object thereto has been considered, which is evident from bare reading of pargraphs-12 to 20 of the judgment, which are as follows:-
"12. It may be worth noting that the ACP scheme was enforced on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in context with Group C and D employees and it 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 2 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2985 3 2025:JHHC:25563 provided monetary benefit to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service who were not able to get promotion. The scheme as such was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay scale for the grant of financial upgradation only without grant of actual promotion. The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.
13. At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period.
14. The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.
15. In sum and substance, both ACP and MACP Schemes are schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief in the form of financial benefits. Accordingly, the schemes provide for regular financial upgradation on completion of 12-24 years and 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. They are incentive schemes for the employees who complete a particular period of service but without getting promotion for lack of promotional avenues. The effect of the schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of the scheme.
16. In Union of India v. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.
17. It was further observed that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.
18. In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the matter being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on non-functional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for such 4 2025:JHHC:25563 nonfunctional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.
19. In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated 28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.
20. We have not considered it necessary to deal with the two cases on the basis of which the Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and granted the benefit of the ACP to the appellants, as we have independently of those two decisions have considered and held that the appellants are entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of requisite regular service ignoring the higher qualification prescribed for the next higher post as grant of such benefit is not actually a promotion but only financial upgradation and if the higher qualification is insisted it would frustrate the purpose of the entire scheme."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183, clearly held that "the purpose of the ACP Scheme/MACP Scheme is to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and the Scheme does not involve the actual grant of promotional post to the employees, but to merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria."
24. Therefore, it is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the requirement of regular promotion is not necessarily required to be fulfilled for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP. In that case, the employee who did not even have the qualification of graduation which the requirement of regular promotion, but the Hon'ble Apex Court held that those requirement of regular promotion are not required to be fulfilled for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP, as the benefit of grant of ACP is like granting of non-functional in situ promotion.
25. Further the Patna High Court in the case of Shambhu Baitha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 4676 relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (supra) directed the respondents to grant the benefit of ACP/MACP without there being impeded by the issue of non- passing of the departmental examination in time. In the said case, specific stand of the State was that the employee became entitled to grant of benefit of 2nd MACP from the date of passing of Accounts 5 2025:JHHC:25563 Examination and not from the earlier date, but the Patna High Court was of the view that the issue is no more res integra, inasmuch as in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that non-passing of departmental account examination would not be an impediment for grant of promotion of the assured career progression scheme."
Emphasis Supplied
8. After perusing the aforesaid judgment and after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, there is no hesitation in holding that the grounds taken by the respondents are not tenable in the eyes of law.
9. Accordingly, the order issued vide Memo no.954 dated 09/10/2018, is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the entire consequential benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal 6