2025:JHHC:15131 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6637 of 2018 ---------- Sanjay Kumar Verma, aged about 50 years, son of late Sudarshan Ram Verma, resident of Deputy Commissioner’ residence Road, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. District Development Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. 5. Adhyach, Zila Parishad, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. 6. The Secretary, Zila Parishad, Gumla, P.O. and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.P. Sinha, Advocate Md. Salahuddin Ansari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V ---------- 18/ 11.06.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the Respondent-authorities to provide the benefits of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 11.02.2008 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 11.02.2018 and also for fixation of pay in the light of recommendations of 7th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.2016, after quashing letter no. 225/Zila Parishad, Gumla dated 04.06.2016. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed vide letter No. 987 dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ application), wherein it has been stated by the Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, Jharkhand that Petitioner would be entitled for every benefits, except pension, which would be applicable to the employees of Zila Parishad. 2025:JHHC:15131 2 3. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has received the benefits of 1st ACP and 3rd MACP; however, he has been denied the benefits of 2nd ACP. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein at para-11 it has been stated that: “11. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that the averments made in para-5 are denied. It is stated and submitted that the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Memo No. 2981/Bi dated 01.09.2009 mentioned in Parishisth 1 para 17, that the employee of Corporation/ Body/ Autonomous Body will not come under the purview of the benefits of ACP/MACP.” 5. From perusal of para-17 of the resolution issued under Memo No. 2981/Bi dated 01.09.2009, it is apparent that the benefits of ACP and MACP will not be applicable in the case of petitioner. For brevity, para-17 is extracted herein below: “17. राज्य सरकार से सहायता प्राप्त सभी स्वायत्तशासी संस्था (विश्वविद्यालय / महाविद्यालय सवहत) / राज्य सरकार द्वारा सृवित / अविग्रवहत भारतीय कम्पनी अविवनयम अथिा अन्य अविवनयम के तहत् गवित वनगम / वनकाय/पर्षद या सदृश संस्थान ं में कायषरत कमी इस य िना की पररवि में नहीं आयेंगे । ऐसे संस्थान ं के द्वारा वनयुक्त कमी का िेतन भत्ता, सुवििायें संबंवित संस्था के द्वारा उनके आय- व्ययक (बिट) के तहत् उपलब्ध कराया िाता है, सरकार इस संबंि में क ई हस्तक्षेप नहीं करेगी, वकन्तु ऐसी सुवििाओं की भरपाई के वलये सरकार द्वारा क ई विशेर् सहायता / अनुदान नहीं वदया िायेगा और न सरकार वकसी रूप में इसके वलये उत्तरदायी ह गी। सरकार ऐसी संस्था क ऋण / अनुदान वनवित उद्देश्य की पूवतष के वलये वनिाषररत मागषदशषन के अनुसार देती है। सरकारी सहायता प्राप्त करने िाले ब र्ष / वनगम / वनकाय आवद अपने कवमषय ं क सुवििा देते समय इस बात का पूणषरूपेण ध्यान रखेंगे वक दी िानेिाली सुवििा/िेतन वकसी भी स्थस्थवत में समान अिस्था िाले राज्यकवमषय ं से अविक नहीं ह , अन्यथा सहायता की रावश में कटौती कर दी िायेगी।“ 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts that in the resolution issued by the Finance Department, it has been categorically stated that employees of Corporation/ Body/ Autonomous Body will not come under the purview of benefits of ACP/ MACP and as the employer of the Petitioner is an Autonomous Body, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. 7. Petitioner has heavily relied upon letter No. 987 dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ application), which is his appointment letter; however, the said letter has been issued in contradiction to the aforesaid clause of the resolution. Further, the resolution has also not been challenged 2025:JHHC:15131 3 in the instant writ application and even the categorical statement made in para-11 of the counter-affidavit dated 19.07.2022 has not been controverted. 8. The further contention of the Petitioner that he has already been given the benefits of 1st ACP and 3rd MACP, therefore, he is entitled for the benefits of 2nd ACP. The said statement is subject to verification as to whether 1st ACP and 3rd MACP has been given to him and if the same has been given then under which provision, because in view of the resolution referred herein above, the scheme of ACP/MACP is not applicable to the Autonomous Body where petitioner is working and the said resolution is still in vogue. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/-