Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A.No. 256 of 2024 Narayan Singh, aged about 79 years old, son of Rameshwar Singh, resident of House No. 20, Berosita Kisan Toli, Voroseta, P.O. Voroseta, P.S. Bano, District Simdega, Jharkhand. … … ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District Gumla. 3. The Block Development Officer, Dumri, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District Gumla. 4. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gumla, P.O., P.S. and District Gumla. … ... … Respondents … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Respondents : AC to AAG-III … Order No. 11/dated 14.10.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant appeal, under clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the Order/Judgment dated 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2329 of 2022 by which the writ petition has been dismissed declining to extend the benefits of upgradation in pay scale on account of non- passing of the departmental examination. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 2 Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be referred herein which reads as under: (i) The petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Sewak vide District Panchayati Raj Officer vide its letter No.1691 dated 23.10.1965 and rendered his services for 36 years having an unblemished record of service. (ii) The petitioner retired from the post of Panchayat Sewak on 30.06.2001. Thereafter the petitioner started receiving his pension. He realized that similarly situated other persons are getting higher pension than the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner represented before the respondent authorities for the redressal of his grievance and the petitioner was informed that his increment is withheld as he has not cleared the departmental examination. (iii) The Department started withholding the petitioner’s annual increment in pension due to the reason that he did not clear the Departmental exam. The Department vide letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983 stated that the Government Servants who have completed 50 years of age have been exempted from passing the Departmental Examination. (iv) The petitioner represented before the Block Development Officer, Dumri Gumla on 11.02.2022 regarding the Department withholding his annual increment in pension and also sent a copy of the letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983 which clearly exempts the Government Servants who have completed 50 years of age from passing the Departmental Examination, which was received by the Department on 11.02.2022 itself. (v) Further it is stated that a copy of petitioner’s representation dated 11.02.2022 was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla which was also received on 11.02.2022. The petitioner again represented vide its letter dated 14.02.2022 before the Block Development Officer, Dumri, Gumla, regarding withholding of his annual increment in pension because he did not clear his Departmental Examination. The petitioner apprised the concerned authority that the petitioner had been Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 3 exempted from clearing the departmental examination vide departmental letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983. Despite repeated requests and representations by the petitioner no steps were taken by the Department for redressing the petitioner’s grievances, (vi) Thereafter, the petitioner again represented before the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Gumla vide its letter dated 21.02.2022 regarding withholding of his annual increment in pension because he did not clear his Departmental Examination and a copy of the petitioner’s representation dated 21.02.2022 was also sent to the Block Development Officer, Dumri, Gumla and Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. The representation was sent through registered post and the same was duly received by the respondents. (vii) Even after several representations made by the petitioner before the respondents, no steps were taken to rectify the mistake, seeing no steps being taken by the Department with request to the representations made by the petitioner, the petitioner again represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide his letter dated 28.02.2022 regarding the payment of dues by adding annual increment, salary pension CEI and gratuity however, no steps were taken by the authority concerned which compelled him to prefer the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2329 of 2022, wherein direction has been sought to forthwith release of the arrears of salary along with annual increment and the said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. (viii) Being dissatisfied from the order of dismissal of the said writ petition, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has joined to the post of Panchayat Sewak on 23.10.1965 and superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001. The writ petitioner after accepting his superannuation, has made an application some time in the year 2022 seeking exemption from passing of the departmental examination so that he may be considered for upgradation in Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 4 the pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The Department has taken no decision which compelled the writ petitioner to prefer writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2329 of 2022 seeking therein direction upon the respondent to release the arrears of salary after adding annual increments which ought to have been granted to the petitioner during his service tenure but withheld on the ground of not passing the departmental examination. 4. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that although he has not passed the departmental examination but he has made an application seeking exemption from passing the said departmental examination on the basis of a letter No.11691 dated 09.11.1983 but no decision has been taken and even no benefits have been taken but the learned Single Judge without appreciating the aforesaid fact has dismissed the writ petition which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has taken the grounds in assailing the impugned Judgment that taking no decision in pursuance to letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983 is absolutely improper which reflects the arbitrariness of the respondents concerned even though the policy decision has been formulated to deal with the situation by granting exemption in passing the departmental examination. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 5 6. The argument has been advanced that the respondent by not taking decision in pursuance to letter dated 09.11.1983 and also not granting benefit of upgradation in the pay scale cannot be said to be proper which amounts to denial of the right conferred to the writ petitioner by virtue of the resolution dated 14.08.2002. The learned Counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that there is no appreciation of these facts hence the impugned Judgment needs to be interfered with. Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent 7. Per contra, learned A.C. to AAG-III has taken the following grounds by defending the impugned Judgment. It has been contented that it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he has been superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2001. It has been contended that the writ petitioner has not passed the Hindi Noting Drafting and Tribal Language Examination which is required for the purpose of consideration of upgradation in pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and even not made any application to take aid of the letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983 seeking exemption for the purpose of consideration of the claim of upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. 8. It has further been contended that the writ petitioner has approached the Authority after lapse of about more than 21 years in making application in terms of the letter dated 09.11.1983 seeking exemption has rightly not been dealt with Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 6 by the respondent authority since the purport of the said letter is to consider for exempting such employee who have not passed Hindi, Noting, Drafting examination immediately after completion of 50 years of service and the content thereof does not construe that such application is to be taken into consideration after superannuation of a concerned employee that too after more than 21 years. The learned Single Judge, therefore has not committed any error in passing the impugned Judgment denying such claim. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment as also the pleading made in the writ petition as has been incorporated in the impugned Judgment. The fact which requires consideration in this case is the entitlement which is being claimed by the appellant for grant of upgradation in the pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme even without passing the departmental examination based upon the exemption which is to be granted by the State in pursuance to the decision so taken as contained in letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983. This Court before considering the aforesaid issue needs to refer herein the clearing of passing of the departmental examination which is mandated as per the provision made under the Bihar Board’s Misc. Rule as available Rule 157 (3) J thereof. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 7 10. The issue of passing departmental examination initially fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of “Shamsuddin Vrs. State of Bihar”, reported in 1983 PLJR 347 wherein it has been held that the passing of departmental examination is not mandatory. However, the said Judgment has again been considered by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of “Maheshwar Prasad Singh vrs. State of Bihar”, reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 840 holding therein that the passing of the departmental examination is must said to be in consonance with the provision of the Board Misc. Rule. 11. It is thus evident that the passing of the departmental examination is necessary for the purpose of grant of promotion. The claim which is being sought for is on the basis of the Govt. Resolution dated 14.08.2002 as contained in memo No. 5207 wherein the conditions have been inserted for the purpose of grant of upgradation and relevant for the present case is the condition No.3 (x) wherein it has been provided that the benefit of upgradation will be extended in favour of one or the other public servant who have got the eligibility criteria of being promoted substantively. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that he has not passed the required examination during the entire service career although he has participated in the examination but failed. The ground has been taken seeking Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 8 exemption based upon the policy decision of the State Government as contained in letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983. 12. We have gone through the contents of the said letter as quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment wherein the very first clause refers to grant exemption depending upon the completion of satisfactory 50 years of service and if such employee has failed in passing the departmental examination, since, it has been quoted in the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, hence, the same is also being referred hereinbelow: 1. The exemption from passing of departmental examination will be given to only those gazetted/non-gazetted employees who have completed 50 years of service. 2. The exemption shall be made effective from the date of order. 3. Exemption shall be granted to only those government servants who continuously participated in the examination but failed or they could not participate in the departmental examination due to official reasons. 4. It should be kept in mind that such examination does not affect the work efficiency. As such, the exemption shall be granted to only those government employees whose service books have no adverse remarks regarding their character, their work performances are satisfactory, no departmental or disciplinary proceeding is pending against them and they have not been punished during their service tenure. 5. The right of giving exemption from passing departmental examination will be optional and not mandatory. 6. The order of exemption shall be granted by the order of the departmental minister. 7. No consent is required from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, before passing the order of exemption. 13. Other conditions are also there. But we are not concerned with the other conditions, since, as per the admitted case the writ petitioner has not been exempted, since, the State has not taken any decision on the basis of the representation made said Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 9 to consider in the light of the policy decision dated 09.11.1983. Although there is no reference made by learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment as to whether the action of the State can be deprecated due to not taking any decision but since we are considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being the extension of the jurisdiction of the writ court hence we fail in our duty if we will not consider the said issue by giving the specific finding. 14. The petitioner although has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2001. It is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that he has failed in the examination conducted by the department for clearing the Hindi, Noting, Drafting and regional language examination. He has not taken any endeavour for seeking exemption in the light of the policy decision as contained in letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983, rather, he has accepted his status of not getting the benefit of upgradation in pay scale fairly for a period of more than 21 years and in the month of February, 2022 he has made representation to the Authority, in the light of the decision so taken by the State, as contained in letter No. 11691 dated 09.11.1983. The said decision, therefore, has admittedly been submitted after lapse of more than 21 years. 15. We are conscious that in the writ jurisdiction there is no applicability of the law of limitation but the principle of delay Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 10 and laches is to be given due consideration in order to have the specific finding regarding the approach of the litigant. Herein the appellant has remained idle for a period of about 21 years and after that period the representations have been filed. The copy of the representation is appended but without showing any reason of such unexplained delay. 16. Law even settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court as under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised to give relief as a court of equity to the litigant who has come to the Court after raising from slumber after much delay, herein, it is after two decades. 17. This Court, therefore, is of the view that if in such circumstances the State has not taken any decision of the said representation said to be filed for consideration of exemption in view of the policy decision dated 09.11.1983, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary exercised by the State authority. The fact remains that the writ petitioner has not passed the departmental examination and even no exemption has been granted then in that view of the matter and considering the applicability of the Rule of passing the departmental examination as also available in the condition stipulated under the Resolution dated 14.08.2002, this Court is of the view that in absence of passing the departmental examination, the upgradation in the pay scale has been denied, the same, Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32030-DB ) 11 according to our considered view, cannot said to suffer from an error. 18. Adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein also the view has been taken regarding the denial of the claim of the writ petitioner of upgradation in the pay scale which according to our considered view, based upon the discussion made hereinabove, does not suffer from any error. Accordingly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. 19. Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated 14th October, 2025 P.K.S./Suman A.F.R.