2025:JHHC:34236 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.3493 of 2022 ----- Ram Kishore Singh, son of late Ambika Prasad Singh, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Chuttu Vikash Road, PO Neori Vikash, PS Sadar, District Ranchi … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand 2.The Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kavita Singh, Advocate (through V.C.) For the State : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, AC to AAG-IV …...... 11 /17.11.2025: Ms. Kavita Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner appears through virtual mode. She has no complaint regarding the quality and clarity of video and audio. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The petitioner claims benefit of ACP which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination and there is no guideline to exempt the retired employee from passing the examination to get the benefit of ACP. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that no examination was ever held when the petitioner was in service. Thus, he could not avail the benefits of the said examination. 5. A similar type of dispute arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 (decided on 25th April, 2023). In the aforesaid case, the grant of ACP was denied, as the candidates did not possess their minimum qualification i.e. Graduation, which was prescribed for promotion to the next higher 2025:JHHC:34236 2 post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aforesaid case, had held that the object of the 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. This is granted to the employees on the post held by them without disturbing seniority and for avoiding stagnation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also relied upon the judgment of “Union of India vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy” reported in (2022) 6 SCC 183. It is necessary to quote para-13, 15 and 16 of the judgment of Amresh Kumar Singh (supra), which are as hereunder:- “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 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:3461 4 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.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter by holding that it is only enhancement of the pay scale on the same post to avoid 2025:JHHC:34236 3 stagnation, had allowed the Appeals preferred by the employees by granting them benefits. 6. Thus, it is clear that to get the benefit of ACP which is nothing but the upgradation of the pay-scale on the same post to prevent stagnation, it is not necessary to pass the departmental examination. 7. The State also admits that this case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Amresh Kumar Singh” (supra) followed by order of this Court in WP(S) No. 5947 of 2015 titled “Harendra Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others”. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. 8. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of ACP to the petitioner. The arrears should also be paid to the petitioner and post retiral benefits pursuant to the re-fixation of the pay-scale of the petitioner should also be granted. Entire process should be concluded within 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 9. Impugned order dated 14.08.2002 is set aside. 10. This writ petition is allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17.11.2025 Tanuj/CP-2