2025:JHHC:30687 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6203 of 2019 Bishwanath Prasad aged about 66 years, son of late Sant Prasad, Resident of c/o Neeraj Kumar Lala, Mohalla Shastri Nagar, Second Gali, Kanke Road, P.O. University Post Office, P.S- Gonda, District-Ranchi. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Cum Inspector General, Registration, Government of Jharkhand, Engineering Building Near Golchakkar, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S- Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi 3. Under Secretary, Registration Department, Government of Jharkhand, Engineering Building Near Golchakkar, P.O-Dhurva, P.S- Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 4. District Sub-Registrar, District Sub Registry Office, Gola, P.O & P.S- Gola, District- Ramgarh 5. District Registrar Cum Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O & P.S- Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh 6. Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O & P.S- Doranda, District- Ranchi 7. The State of Bihar, Karmik Prashashanik, and Raj Bhasa Bibhag, Bihar ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I For the State of Bihar :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, AC to GA, Bihar -------- Order No.6 /Dated: 23rd September 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. (i) For issuance of appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/direction (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to revise the pay- scale of the petitioner as Rs. 580-840 from Rs 535-765 and thereafter to grant the benefit of first Time Bound promotion w.e.f 1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2800 and second Time Bound promotion w.e.f 2001 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 because consequent upon confirmation of services of the petitioner he has not been granted the permanent pay scale neither petitioner has been granted any Time Bound. AND (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/direction (s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents in alternative to grant the benefit of 1st A.C.P (Assured Carrier Progression) w.e.f.09-08-1999, 2nd 2025:JHHC:30687 2 A.C.P w.e.f 09-08-2005 and 3rd M.A.C.P w.e.f. 10-02-2011, after revision of pay scale upon confirmation of petitioner, because once the petitioner has been denied of his Time Bound promotions or any regular promotions, he is duly entitled to the benefit of aforesaid A.C.P and M.A.C.P (Modified Assured Carrier Progression) and to pay the arrears of difference of salary and revision of pension of the petitioner on account of grant of A.C.P and M.A.C.P as a consequential relief. (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ (s) / order (s) /direction (s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19-06-2017 (Ax - 7) granting benefit of only 1st A.C.P to the petitioner w.e.f. 18-03-2008 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 because the same is wholly erroneous and illegal. AND/OR (iv) For any other consequential relief or relief (s) to which the petitioner is duly entitled in the eyes of law considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue with regard to payment of ACP/MACP has now been settled in catena of judgments, whereby it has been settled that no departmental examination is required to be passed by any employee and ACP/MACP is simply a financial upgradation. Accordingly, he submits that the respondents be directed to calculate the ACP/MACP under proper pay scale and pay the same to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the issue with regard to ACP/MACP has already been settled that passing of departmental examination is not necessary. 4. This Court in the case of “Akshay Lal Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” in W.P.(S) No. 1638 of 2020 relying upon the judgment of “Amresh Kr. Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.” 1 and “Somnath Ojha in W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2022 with analogous cases” granted similar relief. For brevity paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of order dated 14.08.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1638 of 2020 are extracted as under: “4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed in the case of “Somnath Ojha” (Supra), it appears that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has framed four issues in which issue no. 2 is relevant for this case and the same has been dealt with in paragraph no. 21 of the said judgment and the said judgment has been decided in favour of the Petitioner. For brevity, paragraph nos. 21 to 25 are quoted hereinbelow: “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 1 (2023) SCC Online SC 496 2025:JHHC:30687 3 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 regujlar 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 paragraph nos. 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 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 2025:JHHC:30687 4 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 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 2025:JHHC:30687 5 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 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 5. After perusing the aforesaid judgment, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the reason given by the Respondents in denying the claim of the Petitioner for grant of MACP benefits on the ground that he has not completed the departmental examination; is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed and as such, the impugned order requires interference.” 5. Having regard to the settled proposition, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for ACP/MACP benefit and any hindrance with regard to passing of departmental examination shall not come in the way of his financial upgradation. The stand of the respondents that ACP benefit has been given to the petitioner does not make any sense in view of the fact that they will have to again recalculate as to whether ACP was given after completion of 10 years of service or not and so on and so forth. 6. Accordingly, in the light judgment referred to hereinabove the instant writ application stands allowed. 7. The respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioner under proper pay scale after giving proper ACP/MACP benefit without taking into consideration of passing of the departmental examination. In other words, the respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Pending I.A., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 23.09.2025 Amit