2025:JHHC:27932 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 705 of 2025 ----- 1. Shiv Kumar Singh age about 69 years S/O Late Chandra Deep R/O Village -Bahasi, P.O- Kadil Pur P.S-Jandaha -District -Vaishali. Bihar. 2. Bedanand Singh age about 72 Years S/O Late Manohar Singh R/O Flat No. 101, Trayambkeshwar Apartment Enclave, Chasire Home Road, Bariyatu, P.O + P.S - Bariyatu, District- Ranchi. 3. Sachcha Prasad Singh age about 70 years S/O Late Lakhan Singh R/O Village - Shakti Nagars, Hazipur, P.O - Anjupur P.S-Vaishali(T), - Dis- trict- Vaishali., Bihar 4. Rajendra Singh age about 72 years S/O Late Ambika Singh R/O Village -Tetaria, P.O- Buddha gere, P.S- Gaya (M) District - Gaya, Bi- har. 5. Upendra Rajak age about 69 Years S/O Late Pradeep Rajak R/O Village - Rupas Mahaji P.O- GayasPur Mahaji, P.S -Salim Pur, District Patna, Bihar 6. Bharat Singh age about 64 years S/O Late Shambhu Nath Singh R/O Village- Shastri Nagar, R.N-02 Jail Press Road, Gaya, P.O + P.S - Gaya, District - Gaya, Bihar. 7. Arun Kumar Shrivastava 68 years S/O Late Shyamala Nand Lal R/o Flat no. 103B Maa Enclave, Chasire Home Road, Bariyatu, P.O + P.S- Bariyatu, District- Ranchi ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary Department of Disaster Manage- ment and Jail, R/O at Office Nepal House, P.O. + P.S - Doranda, Dis- trict Ranchi. 2. Inspector General, Prison, Jharkhand, R/O Village + P.O + P.S - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. Accountant, General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, R/O Doranda, P.O + P.S — Doranda, District-Ranchi … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II : Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Advocate …...... 04/ 02.09.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs, order/orders, direction/directions for implementation of Resolution vides memo no. 6/S-06(PRO)-03/2009 2981/VI Ranchi dated 01.09.2009 in the pension and arrears of the petitioners who are eligible for Rs. 4600/- Pay band but Respondents/ State is still paying the pen- sion on pay band of Rs. 2800/-. AND/OR b) For quashing of the Letter No. -03/GA Court- 56/2021 1774 / Jail Dated 18.07.2024 issued by Sudarshan Prasad Mandal, Inspector General of Prisons, Jharkhand Ranchi as the same is contradictory to the Resolution vides memo no. 6/S-06(PRO)- 03/2009 2981/VI Ranchi dated 01.09.09 by which state of Jharkhand has implemented the scheme of M.A.C.P with effect from 01/09/2008, however, the Respondents have failed to implement the said reso- lution in the pension and arrears of the Petitioner(s), despite being eligible for the pay band of Rs.4600/- and continue to disburse the pension based on the old pay band of Rs.2800/-. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Warders and retired between 2014 and 2021 after completing over 30 years of service. They received most of their retirement benefits but they were not given the benefits of the 3rd MACP, nor was their pension fixed based in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, as claimed by the petitioner. Instead, their pension was calculated on Grade Pay Rs. 2800. The Government of Jharkhand had implemented the MACP scheme in which under Rule 20(k)(iii) the petitioners were eligible for Grade Pay Rs. 4600 after 30 years of service. The petitioners had earlier filed W.P.(S) No. 4007/2021, and the High Court directed the Respondent to take action on their representation within 3 months but no relief was granted. After that the petitioners filed Contempt Case No.604 of 2024. During its pendency, respondent No.2 issued a letter denying the Rs. 4600 Grade Pay. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite fulfilling all eligibility conditions, the petitioners' pension has been wrongly fixed at Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-, in contradiction to the said resolution. He further submits that due to the indifferent and negligent attitude of the respondent, the petitioners have not received the rightful MACP benefits thereby causing grave financial loss and hardship to them. He also submits that Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 18.07.2024, rejecting the claim of petitioners which is contrary to the MACP policy. 4. The learned counsel for State submits that the petitioners are not eligible for Grade Pay Rs. 4600, because Rule 20(k)(iii) applies only to employees who received a second regular promotion to Pay Band-II (Grade pay Rs. 4200) which the petitioners never received. Hence, they were rightly given benefits under Rule 20(k)(i) in the grade pay of Rs. 2800. He further submits that as per the Finance Department, the pay scale of Warders in Jharkhand has not been revised and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd MACP benefits are limited to Grade pay Rs. 2000, Rs.2400, and Rs. 2800 respectively. He also submits that there is no violation of rules as the pension is being paid regularly, based on the correct last drawn Grade pay of Rs. 2800. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of MACP in terms of the Government Resolution dated 01.09.2009. The applicability of Rule 20(k)(iii) is conditional upon the persons having received a second regular promotion to Pay Band-II Grade Pay Rs. 4200 and admittedly, the petitioners have not met the said eligibility. 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact since the petitioners do not fulfill the eligibility criteria to get the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 for the 3rd MACP, I find no merit in this petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.