Jharkhand High Court
Binay Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:11515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 3242 of 2022
----------
1. Binay Sharma, aged about 65 years, s/o. Dip Narayan Sharma, R/o. Barmasia, Abhyudayasharan, P.O. & P.S. Banka, Dist. Banka, Bihar.
2. Prahlad Singh, Aged about 64 years, s/o. late Jagdish Singh, R/o. Nayabazar, Rajmahal, P.O. and P.S. Rajmahal, Dist. Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
3. Triveni Sharma, aged about 68 years, S/o. Shri Sharma, R/o. Barimawsiya, P.O. Kamdeopur, P.S. Amarpur, Dist. Banka, Bihar.
.......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Inspector General, Prison, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, Dist. Dumka, Jharkhand.
5. The Superintendent, Sub-Division Jail, Sahibganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, Dist. Sahibganj, Jharkhand.
6. The Superintendent, Sub-Division Jail, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, Dist. Godda, Jharkhand.
.......... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Aman Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV
----------
08/ 20.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs:
(i) For issuance an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) commanding upon respondents to immediately and forthwith complete all the formalities in relation to grant of benefits of 3rd M.A.C.P. (Modified Assured Career Progression) Scheme and subsequent thereto make payment of the arrears arising out of the same at the earliest.
(ii) For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) to calculate and make payments of all the arrears arising out of grant of 3rd M.A.C.P. alongwith Interest at the earliest.1
2026:JHHC:11515
(iii) Further not to discriminate the petitioner from the similarly situated persons who have been granted the benefits of the 3rd M.A.C.P. as some of the said employees are even junior to these petitioners.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the writ application are that petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 namely, Binay Sharma and Triveni Sharma joined their services on 21.08.1983 whereas, petitioner No. 2 joined his services on 20.11.1982. After rendering long period of services and on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 superannuated from services on 28.02.2017, 30.04.2018 and 30.09.2014 respectively.
3. The case of petitioners is that they were granted 2nd ACP vide order No. 86 dated 27.06.2011, issued by the office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Dumka. However, the respondents have denied to extend the benefits of 3 rd MACP, for which the petitioners made several representations. Subsequently, the petitioners came to know that the meeting of D.P.C. was convened for grant of 1st, 2nd and 3rd MACP and vide order dated 29.05.2020, the cases of 14 employees were placed for consideration, however, the claim of 2 employees was rejected and rest 12 were granted the benefits 3rd MACP.
4. Thereafter, again a meeting was held and many similarly situated co-employees were granted the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP vide order dated 27.01.2021. However, the petitioners were denied the benefits of 3rd MACP, hence, they have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not received benefits of 3rd MACP and the ground taken by the respondents is that they have not passed the departmental examination.
6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon several judgments including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of 2 2026:JHHC:11515 Bihar & Ors.1 and submits that the issue involved in this writ application is squarely covered by the said judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents could not oppose the said contention and only submits that the petitioners have not passed the departmental examination. He further submits that petitioner No. 2 has been granted the benefits, however, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have not been granted the benefits of 3 rd MACP as claimed by them from the due date for the reasons that they have not passed the departmental examination.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (Supra), it appears that the issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that the Scheme 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 Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the benefit of ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.
9. For brevity paragraphs 12 to 19 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (Supra) is extracted herein below:
"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 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 3 2026:JHHC:11515 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 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 4 2026:JHHC:11515 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."
10. Having regard to the aforesaid settled position, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that non-consideration of the cases of the petitioners for granting the benefits of 3rd MACP only on the ground of non-passing of the departmental examination is not sustainable in law in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amresh Kumar Singh (supra).
11. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the monetary benefits ignoring the clause of passing the departmental examination and pay the same to the petitioners within a period 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 20th April, 2026 Kunal/-
Uploaded on 04.05.2026 5