2026:JHHC:13862 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2484 of 2019 …… Santi Devi Wife of Late Babulal Rajak, resident of Main Road Gungta, Near Sulochana Sadan, Gangtakchand, Godda, P.O., P.S. Godda, District-Godda. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The Union of India. 2. The Commandant, 106 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), Jamshedpur, P.O. Sundar Nagar, P.S. Sundar, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). 3. The Commandant, 173 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), Air Field Dimapur, P.O. Dimapur, P.S. Dimapur, District Dimapur (Nagaland). 4.The D.I.G., Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), Khatkhati, P.O. Khat Khati, Khat P.S. Khati, Dist. Karbi Anglong Assam. 5.The Commandant, 147 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force Police Air Field, Kashipur, P.O. Kashipur, P.S. Kashipur, District Silchar (Assam). 6.The Accounts Officer, 0/0 Commandant, 147 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Kashipur, P.S. Kashipur, District P.O. Kashipur, Silchar (Assam). 7. The D.I.G Group Centre-2, Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.), Foy Sagar Road, P.O. Jones Ganj, P.S. Aanasagar, District (Rajasthan) Ajmer. 8.The Commandant, 107 Battalion, Rapid Action Force (R.A.F.), Hinotia, Raisen, P.O. Hinotia, P.S. Hinotia, District Pradeh) Saisen, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, Adv For the Respondent (s): Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Sr. Panel Counsel : Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocte …… 15/28.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner initially preferred for following reliefs; (i) For quashing the Office Order dated 10.04.2003 (Annexure 1) as the same has been passed without application of mind and after, quashing the same, its consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:13862 2 (ii) For correcting the effecting date of 1st Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (A.C.P.) and 2nd Modified Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (M.A.C.P.) respectively w.e.f. 17.07.2005 and 01.07.2010 as decided vide Annexure and 2 and for the payment of consequential benefits in pay scale of the petitioner. (iii) For staying the recovery of the amount being done due to wrong and erroneous fixation of effective date of 2nd M.A.C.P. as the same is against Annexure 2 and the recovery is being made without passing a formal order in this regard. 3. However, after filing of the counter-affidavit, the petitioner does not pray for modification of the date of the 1st ACP; however, he has still a grievance with respect to the date of the 2nd ACP. 4. Learned counsel contends that as per the ACP/MACP scheme, since the petitioner was appointed on 19.07.1991, he became entitled to the 1st ACP in the year 2003, and after the regime of MACP scheme, he became entitled to the 1st MACP on 18.07.2011. He fairly submits that, as the petitioner was punished, the respondents deferred the grant of the 1st ACP; however, insofar as the MACP is concerned, the same ought to have been granted from the date on which the petitioner actually became entitled under the scheme. Accordingly, he submits that the 2nd MACP benefit may be extended to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent draws the attention of this Court towards paragraph 15 of the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 19th May, 2009 and straightway refers to Clause 15; wherein it has been indicated that if a financial upgradation under the MACPs scheme is deferred and not allowed after 10 years in a grade pay, due to the reason of the employees being unfit or due to the departmental 2026:JHHC:13862 3 proceeding, etc. this would have consequential effect on the subsequent financial upgradation which would also get deferred to the extent of delay in grant of 1st financial upgradation. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Office Memorandum is for the Central Government civilian employees and the petitioner is in CRPF; as such he is entitled for the same. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding, was awarded a major punishment, and that, in accordance with the rules, the 1st MACP was deferred; consequently, due to this initial deferment, the subsequent financial upgradation was also affected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that OM dated 19.05.2009 issued for MACP scheme which replaces the old scheme with career progression at 10th 20th and 30th year. 9. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be for 2nd MACP inasmuch as after filing of the counter-affidavit he has confined his prayer for 2nd MACP benefit. He submits that as per MACP scheme he was entitled for 2nd MACP after 20 years of service. Since he was punished, he was rightly not given the 1st ACP after 12 years of joining but after the regime of MACP, the petitioner ought to have been given 2nd MACP in the year 2011 after completion of 20 years of service; inasmuch as, he joined on 19.07.1991. 10. From record, it appears that initially the petitioner was given the 2nd MACP (Annexure-3), however, pursuant to 2026:JHHC:13862 4 an audit objection; after following the procedure, the original grant of MACP from the year 2011 has been withdrawn. 11. After going through the impugned order, it appears that the 1st MACP was given to the petitioner on 10.04.2010 and the next ACP was given on 10.04.2018. The reason which is indicated in Annexure-6 is that as per the provision contained in para 15 of DOPT OM No. 35034/3/2008-ESST (D) dated 19.05.2019, he has been granted 2nd MACP from 10.04.2018. 12. During course of hearing the original OM dated 19.05.2009 which is indicated in the impugned order has been placed by learned counsel for the respondent which is taken on record. By going through the OM dated 19.05.2009 which is the ground taken in the impugned order at para 15 speaks as follows: - “15. If a financial upgradation under the MACPS is deferred and not allowed after 10 years in a grade pay, due to the reason of the employees being unfit or due to departmental proceedings, etc., this would have consequential effect on the subsequent financial upgradation which would also get deferred to the extent of delay in grant of first financial upgradation.” 13. From bare perusal para 15 of the OM dated 19.05.2009, it is evidently clear that if the financial upgradation under MACP is deferred and not allowed after 10 years in a grade pay due to the reason of employees being unfit or due to departmental proceeding etc. this would have been consequently effect on the subsequent financial upgradation which would also get deferred to the extent of delay in grant of 1st Financial upgradation. Thus, it appears that the respondent has not committed error in calculation and the same has been calculated as per para 15 of the OM Dated 19.05.2009. 2026:JHHC:13862 5 It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that even admitting Clause 15 and even admitting the OM dated 19.05.2009 i.e. with regard to extension the date; the same is not applicable to petitioner as the O.M. is w.r.t. civilians’ employees; however, his contention is misplaced and the said O.M. is equally applicable to CRPF employees also. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A.s if any also stands disposed of. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J) 28.04.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 15.05.2026