2025:JHHC:21312 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1866 of 2025 Minu Chouhan, Wife of Late Harish Chandra Chouhan, Aged about- 59 years, resident of 4/5 Akash Tower, Sonari Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1 The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary/Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. The Director, Provident Fund Directorate, Planning and Finance Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Director, Directorate of Pension and Accounts, Jharkhand, having its office at TA Division Building, CTI Colony, Sector 4, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Pension and Accounts, Jharkhand, having its office at TA Division Building, CTI Colony, Sector-4, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum. … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) :Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I -------- Order No.06 /Dated: 30th July 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1.That in the instant writ application petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Office Order Contained in Memo no. 271 dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-7) issued by Deputy Director, Pension and Accounts Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi; whereby and whereunder claim of benefits of ACP/MACP of the deceased Husband of the Petitioner namely Late Harish Chandra Chouhan has been illegally rejected by the Screening Committee held on 29.01.2025 on the ground of non- passing of departmental Accounts Examination finally ignoring the decision passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Amresh Kumar Singh & Others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 496; AND After quashing of the Office Order Contained in Memo no. 271 dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-7) Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct the respondents concerned to immediately and forthwith grant 1st and 2nd 2025:JHHC:21312 2 ACP to the deceased husband of the petitioner who was entitled for 1st and 2nd ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 as he had completed more than 24 years' service prior to 09.08.1999 and to pay consequential benefits including revision of pension and family pension; AND/OR For issuance of any other writ(s)/ rule(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing consolable justice to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow and her husband died in the year 2019 itself. On the earlier occasion the petitioner moved before this Court for the same said relief with regard to grant of ACP and MACP benefits, however, the same was dismissed on the ground of laches. Thereafter, this petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal which was withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 31.01.2025. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 wherein the ground of non-passing of the departmental examination was taken for not granting the claim in question. Learned counsel further refers to the judgment in “Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. V. State of Bihar & Ors.”1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that passing of departmental examination in situ promotion is not required. 3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the impugned order, admittedly; the ground for not granting the ACP and MACP benefit to the husband of the petitioner during his lifetime is nonest in the eye of law in view of the settled proposition as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment wherein the Court has held after dealing several judgments as under: “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 1 2023 SCC online SC 496 2025:JHHC:21312 3 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 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.” 4. Accordingly, the ground for rejection of the claim of this widow is not sustainable in the eye of law. The contention of the respondents that 2025:JHHC:21312 4 husband of the petitioner never made any claim before the respondents and after his death, the widow has claimed the right of her husband and only on that ground the writ petition was dismissed, is not acceptable now in view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has granted liberty to this petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 31.01.2025. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-7 to the writ application), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The 2nd Respondent is hereby directed to look into the matter and calculate the amount with respect to what the husband of the petitioner would have been entitled to, had the ACP and MACP benefit been given to him during his lifetime and after proper calculation, extend the same benefit along with statutory interest to this petitioner who is widow of the erstwhile employee and consequently revise the family pension as per law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. The writ application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit