2026:JHHC:291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 300 of 2023 Bharat Prasad Singh, son of late Ramjee Prasad Singh, resident of Vivekanand Nagar, Kala Pathar, P.O and P.S- Chikasia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, HEC Township, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Path Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O and P.S. and District- Hazaribagh. 4. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Development Department, Road Division, P.O and P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro. 5. Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Development Department, Road Subdivision, Bermo, P.O and P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro. …... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s M.M. Sharma, Saibal Mitra and S.B. Gupta, Advocates. For the respondents Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate. ------ 09/07.01.2026: Heard the parties. 2. It is an admitted case that the Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefit which the petitioner was granted, has been rejected on the ground that he has not passed the qualifying examination which is necessary for his promotion. 3. The issue of passing departmental examination for grant of ACP has now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 16, after referring to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721 held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation and to give certain monetary benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the fulfillment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “16. In Union of India Vs. G. Ganjanna 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. 1. 17. It was further observed that fulfillment 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.” 4. In this case, the petitioner is claiming the benefit of ACP, which is nothing but in situ promotion where only the pay scale of the petitioner will be increased to the next grade, but not the post. The petitioner will admittedly not officiate the higher post but will only get the monetary benefit. 5. Thus, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order dated 23.9.2019 as contained in Memo No. 969 (Annexure-6 to this writ petition) and the order as contained in Memo No. 2347 dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby the benefits of ACP granted to the petitioner has been rejected, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of ACP/MACP to the petitioner immediately from the date, when the petitioner is eligible. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, the respondent will revise the pension and post retiral benefits of the petitioner and will pay the arrears and pension accordingly. The entire process should be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stand disposed of. 7th January, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 13.01.2026