2026:JHHC:17459 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5864 of 2022 ….….. Asit Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 64 years, son of Late Nepal Chandra Mukherjee, Permanent Resident of Jail Road, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka and presently Resident of South Samaj Street, Tharphakna, P.O. Ranchi P.S. Lower Bazaar, District Ranchi. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.Ο. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Van Bhawan, Doranda, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 4. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, having its office at Sinchai Bhawan, Patna Secretariat, P.O. and P.S. Patna Secretariat, District Patna. 5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Bihar, having office at having its office at Aranya Bhawan, State Forest Headquarters, Sahid Pir Ali Khan Path, Near Patna Airport, Riding Road, P.O. and P.S. Sheikhpura, District-Patna. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II C.A.V. ON: 18/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- 2026:JHHC:17459 2 (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the notification as contained in memo no. Vi.Va.Se- 33/99/90 dated 10.01.2013 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been granted ad-hoc promotion with immediate effect to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800/-, Grade Pay 5,400/-; AND (ii) Upon quashing of the aforesaid, a further writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) be issued upon the respondent authorities to grant regular promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment & Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, w.e.f. 28.06.1995 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioner has been granted promotion and further grant consequential benefits; AND (iii) For issuance of further writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) upon the respondent authorities to grant 2nd A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 with effect from 13.08.2005 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioner has been granted 2nd A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- Grade Pay 7,600/- with effect from 13.08.2011 i.e. the date on which juniors to the petitioner has been granted M.A.C.P.; And / Or (iv) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper and for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. Brief Facts 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Range Forest Officer on 18.07.1983. After bifurcation of erstwhile State of Bihar on 15.11.2000, the petitioner was allocated the cadre of the State of Jharkhand. 4. On 19.06.1995, a First Information Report bearing Vigilance P.S. Case No. 45 of 1995 (Special Case No. 10 of 1995) was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 109 and 120B 2026:JHHC:17459 3 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2), 5(1), 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Charge Sheet in the said case was submitted in the year 2004. 5. A Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 28.06.1995 for considering the cases of promotion of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. In the meeting held on 28.06.1995, the petitioner’s case was considered and he was found fit to be promoted from the post Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The petitioner’s name was reflected at serial No.2. The minutes of meeting dated 28.06.1995 was obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005. 6. The seats were reserved for those employees against whom investigation / enquiry was pending. Two seats were kept reserved for promotion of the petitioner and other person namely Shri D. N. Singh till final decision was taken in a pending case. The said information was obtained through Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. By a Notification as contained in Memo No. 4527 dated 08.11.1995, 29 persons were granted promotion from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 28.06.1995. 8. The persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted 2026:JHHC:17459 4 on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and the petitioner’s name was kept under sealed cover. 9. Other employees whose details have been mentioned at paragraph-11 of the writ petition have been promoted from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest vide Notification dated 08.11.1995, despite the fact that the First Information Report was registered against them and against some of the persons Departmental Proceeding was pending against them. Similarly, A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. benefits have also been granted to them. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2516 of 2011 for a direction upon the respondents to consider and grant promotion from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest pursuant to the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 28.06.1995, wherein the petitioner has been found to be fit for promotion and the Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and further the petitioner had prayed for grant of promotion from the date on which the juniors were promoted from the post of Range Forest Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. 2026:JHHC:17459 5 10. During the pendency of the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2516 of 2011, a Notification dated 10.01.2013 was issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, wherein the petitioner has been granted ad-hoc promotion with immediate effect to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, in the pay scale of Rs. 9300/- to 34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. 11. The writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2516 of 2011 was withdrawn by an order dated 14.10.2022 with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 10.01.2013 to the extent it relates to giving promotion to the petitioner with effect from 10.01.2013 on ad-hoc basis, although the petitioner was entitled for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted, as the case of the petitioner was kept under the sealed cover. 12. During the pendency of the writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 2516 of 2011, the petitioner has retired from the services on 31.12.2018. 13. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for consideration of his promotion from the post of Forest Range Officer to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, 2026:JHHC:17459 6 Government of Jharkhand with effect from 28.06.1995 i.e. date on which the juniors to the petitioner has been granted promotion and other consequential benefits. 14. The petitioner has further prayed for grant of 2nd A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 with effect from 13.08.2005 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted 2nd A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. benefits in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100 Grade Pay 7600 with effect from 13.08.2011 i.e. the date on which juniors to the petitioner has been granted M.A.C.P. 15. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case vide order dated 30.09.2024 in connection with S.T. Case No.10 of 1995 arising out Vigilance P.S. Case No. 45 of 1995. The said fact has been brought on record by the petitioner by filing a Supplementary Affidavit dated 27.02.2025. Further a Supplementary Affidavit dated 03.12.2025 has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record the fact that the similarly situated persons have been granted M.A.C.P. benefit by Notification dated 14.10.2025. After retirement, M.A.C.P. benefits have also been granted to the similarly situated persons. Case of the Petitioner 16. The petitioner’s name was kept under the sealed cover in 2026:JHHC:17459 7 spite of the fact that the Charge Sheet has been issued in the criminal case in the year 2004 and the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 28.06.1995. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Others versus K. V. Jankiraman & Others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Others Versus Doly Loyi (Civil Appeal No. 8387 of 2013) to show that the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet is issued. The disciplinary / criminal proceeding can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent court. In the instant case the sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted as on the date of consideration of promotion there was no criminal proceeding/ departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner. The DPC was held on 28.06.1995 and the charge sheet was submitted in the year 2004. Further, seats were kept reserved for the petitioner and therefore, after acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner’s case should be considered and the petitioner may be granted promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 08.11.1995 i.e. the date 2026:JHHC:17459 8 on which the juniors to the petitioner has been granted promotion and consequential benefits. 17. The petitioner’s case should also be considered for grant of 2nd A.C.P. with effect from 13.08.2005 and 3rd M.A.C.P. with effect from 13.08.2011 as similarly situated persons and junior persons have been granted the said benefits and there was no promotional avenue to the petitioner in the entire service career. Case of the Respondents. 18. The State Government has filed their Counter Affidavit and has stated that the case of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 28.06.1995 and the Vigilance clearance was sought for and Vigilance clearance was not provided in view of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the year 1995 and therefore, the same was kept under sealed cover. So far with respect to grant of 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd M.A.C.P. is concerned, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner prior to the date of eligibility of the petitioner. Analysis 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) has answered the question relating to “sealed cover procedure” in service jurisprudence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has held at paragraph-8 and 16 2026:JHHC:17459 9 the following:- “8. The common questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as "sealed cover procedure". Concisely stated, the questions are: (1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/ criminal proceedings are pend-ing against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date? The "sealed cover procedure" is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Hence, the relevance and importance of the questions. questions to be answered. 16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge- sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allega-tions and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested per-sons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39) "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) * * * (3) * * * (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;" 2026:JHHC:17459 10 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doly Loyi (supra) has held at paragraph-24 and 25:- “24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. 25. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the crucial aspect requiring examination is as to whether the prosecution for criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC meeting was held.” 21. In the present case the petitioner’s name could not have been kept under sealed cover in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and Doly Loyi (supra) as on the date when the Department Promotion Committee meeting was held there was no charge-sheet against the petitioner in the criminal case; nor there was any Departmental Proceeding pending against him. The charge sheet was submitted in the year 2004 and later the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 30.09.2024. 22. The State Government has filed an affidavit in W.P.(S) No. 2516 of 2011 wherein at paragraph-11 they have admitted that in the event the petitioner is acquitted of the criminal charges, the petitioner will be promoted from the date on which his juniors have been promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. In the said affidavit it has also been 2026:JHHC:17459 11 admitted that ad-hoc promotion was given to the petitioner subject to the outcome of the criminal case. 23. The State Government has kept two seats reserved for promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest subject to the outcome of the criminal case. 24. It is an admitted fact that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 28.06.1995 had found the petitioner eligible and fit for promotion and on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting when the case of the petitioner was considered, no charge-sheet was filed and the charge-sheet was filed only in the year 2004 and despite this, the petitioner’s case was kept in sealed cover merely because a First Information Report was registered and investigation was pending. 25. The petitioner has also been acquitted in the criminal case on 30.09.2024 and the State Government itself has admitted the fact that two seats were reserved and promotion to the petitioner would be granted on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the event the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case. 26. So far as the A.C.P/ M.A.C.P benefits are concerned; it is a service progression benefit intended to remove stagnation and ensure career advancement where regular promotion is unavailable. Such benefit cannot be denied indefinitely merely 2026:JHHC:17459 12 because criminal proceedings were pending. Once the employee stands acquitted, the denial of A.C.P/ M.A.C.P benefits loses its foundation and the employee becomes entitled to restoration of all consequential benefits. In other words, once the impediment created by criminal proceedings disappears, the employee becomes entitled to consideration from the original due date. Acquittal restores the presumption of innocence and the denial of A.C.P/ M.A.C.P benefits solely because of pendency of case, continuation of such denial when similar benefits have been extended to other employees would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Conclusion 27. Having regard to the fact that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 28.06.1995 has found the petitioner eligible and fit for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest and sealed- cover procedure adopted by the State Government was illegal in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and Doly Loyi (supra) because on the date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 28.06.1995; neither a departmental charge memo; nor criminal charge sheet, existed and looking to the facts that two seats were reserved 2026:JHHC:17459 13 for the petitioner and juniors were promoted on 08.11.1995 pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 28.06.1995 and further the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the petitioner shall be granted retrospective promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 with effect from 08.11.1995 i.e. the date on which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion. 28. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.01.2013, is hereby, quashed and set-aside to the extent that ad-hoc promotion has been granted to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Conservator Forest. The petitioner shall be granted regular promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest with effect from 08.11.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000/- and the necessary order in the said regard shall be issued by the Department within a period of six weeks and consequently pay shall be fixed and pensionary benefits shall be recalculated and the entire arrears shall be released within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 29. So far with respect to grant of 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd M.A.C.P. are concerned, the same shall be granted to the petitioner as similarly situated persons have been granted benefits after retirement. The petitioner has brought on record the Notification dated 14.10.2025 wherein the retired Assistant 2026:JHHC:17459 14 Conservator of Forest has been granted benefits of 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd M.A.C.P. The petitioner otherwise possesses all the eligibility for grant of A.C.P. and M.A.C.P. benefits. 30. The petitioner shall be granted 2nd A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- with effect from 13.08.2005 and 3rd M.A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- with effect from 13.08.2011. The arrears shall be released within a period of four weeks and the pension shall be re-fixed thereafter within a period of two weeks. 31. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 32. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As, if any, also stands disposed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated: 15/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 17.06.2026