IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 6162 of 2014 ----- Barmeshwar Prasad, S/o late Bishwanath Sahay, R/o at Anand Nagar, Moti Jheel, Paiga House, Aara, Post: Aara, Police Station: Aara, District Aara, Bihar. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Circle, Chaibasa. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Seraikella. 6. The Accountant General, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II For the Respondent No.6 : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate ...... 08/30.01.2025: In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of letter No.1422 (A) dated 19.7.2012 issued by the office of The Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder, the benefits accrued to the petitioner under A.C.P. scheme has not been confirmed on account of non-passing of departmental examination and further prayer has been made to grant ACP to the petitioner and, thereafter, fix his pension accordingly. 2. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Accounts Clerk on 04.10.1980 in the Works Division, Advance Planning, Aara, Rural Development Department now known as Rural Engineering Organization. It is the case of the petitioner that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him at any point of time. Since no regular promotion was given to the petitioner, he was granted the benefit of 1st time bound promotion on completion of ten years of successful and continuous service but the same was withdrawn in view of resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999 which was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The government introduced the scheme of Assured Career Progression vide notification dated 14.8.2002 wherein it was provided that if no regular promotion is given to an employee for twelve years, the employee will be placed on the next higher scale and similar benefit will also be given on completion of 24 years of service provided no further promotion is granted. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that neither regular promotion nor benefit of Assured Career Progressions has been given to him on the ground that he has not passed 5th paper in the Accounts Examination in final stage and also his services have not been confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the State has taken a plea that since the petitioner has not passed 5th paper at the final stage of Accounts Examination, thus, services of the petitioner was not confirmed by the department and, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of Assured Career Progressions. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the petitioner had served the department after his appointment i.e. 4.10.1980 and superannuated on 31.12.2011, by putting thirty one years of continuous service. One of the grounds taken by the State that since the petitioner has not passed 5th paper at the final stage of Accounts Examination, hence, his services have not been confirmed, is absolutely illogical. A person who works for thirty one years and superannuated from the post of Accounts Clerk and just because the State does not confirm his service, he cannot be deprived from getting benefits of ACP/MACP. It was the duty of the State to confirm the service of the petitioner during his service period. The State has taken work from the petitioner for thirty one years, paying salary and has also paid retiral benefits, but taking a stand that since his services were not confirmed thus he is not entitled for ACP/ MACP, is not proper. If a person works for a long period and superannuates from service and the State is paying all the pensionary benefits to him, the State cannot deprive the employee from getting the benefit of ACP(s) on the ground of non-confirmation of his service. 6. An Additional ground taken by the learned counsel for the State in this case is that the petitioner has not passed one of the papers in the Accounts Examination. This issue has also been decided by this Court in WP(S) No. 6759 of 2022 [Ram Lala Thakur v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.], relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amresh Kumar Singh & others v. State of Bihar & others” [2023 SCC OnLine SC 496]. This court has allowed the aforesaid writ application. In the case of “Amresh Kumar Singh” (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the judgment of “Union of India vs. C.R. Mdhava Murthy” reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183 has held in favour of the employee. It is necessary to quote para-13, 15 and 16 of the said judgment, which are quoted herein under: “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. 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.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, further in para-17 of the aforesaid judgment has observed as under:- “17. It was further observed that fulfillment 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 benefits where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that grant of ACP(s) is nothing but only enhancement of the pay scale on the same post to avoid stagnation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the Appeals preferred by the employees. I find that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Thus, the present writ application is allowed. The impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The petitioner is entitled for ACP(s) which shall be granted to him along with arrears and, consequently, his retiral benefits should be refixed. Entire process should be completed within a period of twelve weeks’ from the date of production of the copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the present writ application stands allowed.. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR