2026:JHHC:17691 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 4184 of 2024 …… 1. Devendra Narayan Singh, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village Haibatpur, P.O. Rampur Chawram, P.S. Arwal, District-Jehanabad, State- Bihar. 2. Lal Singh Kureel, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Guljari Lal, Resident of M/12 (D/5), Harmu Housing Colony, Harmu, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 3. Bandhu Fernandis, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Ram Prasad Ram, Resident of Bid Bangalow, Tatisilwai, P.O. Tatisilwai, P.S. Tatisilwai, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 4. Nagendra Nath Rai, aged about 68 years, Son of Late B.P. Rai, Resident of Quarter No. 812, Secttor-01/C, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Secttor-01/C, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro, State-Jharkhand. 5. Nagi Singh Kuntian, aged about 69 years, Wife of Dumbi Biruu, Resident of D-303, Urmila Enclave, Road, Peace Lalpur, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 6. Md. Islamul Haque, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Md. Ismail, Resident of 19, Patthal Kuduwa, Church Lane, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 7. Subodh aged Kumar, about 74 years, Son of Late Radha Govind Choudhary, Resident of Barmasiya behind Children Park, Sarbera Road, Giridih P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih, State-Jharkhand. 8. Kameshwar Jha, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Jatashankar Jha, Resident of Flat No. 904, Panchwati Residency, Besides Holidays Home, Kanke Road, P.O. District- Kanke, P.S. Kanke, Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 9. Lalit Mohan Singh, aged about 73 years, Son of Late Raghunath Singh Prasad Pandey, Resident of 149/A-1/D, Taigore Hill Road near Churu Kothi Compound, Morabadi, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand. 10. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, aged about 66 years, Son of Late Basudeo Thakur, Resident of Plot No. 12, IX Phase, Adarsh Nagar, Sonari, P.O. Sonari, P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, State-Jharkhand. ..… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Woman, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Woman, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, 2026:JHHC:17691 Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. District Ranchi. Jagannathpur. ..… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN …… For the Petitioners : Mr. D.K.Dubey, Adv For the Resp-State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II C.A.V. ON: 05/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; a. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s)/direction(s), in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of the part of Memo Nos. 2265, 2266 and 2267 dated 08.08.2023 in (V), as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 7, whereby it has been observed that the revised benefit C of Assured Career Progression /Modified Assured Career Progression shall be granted notionally with effect from 15.11.2000 and actual benefit with effect from 01.03.2007 so far as it relates to grant of first Assured Progression Career in the revised scale with respect to the petitioners; b. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s)/direction(s), directing the respondents to grant the arrears of the first Assured Career Progression in pursuance of the revised pay scale as 2266 and 2267 shown in Memo No. 2265 dated 08.08.2023 in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 7507 of 2017 dated 21.03.2023 in view of the notification issued vide Memo No. 1509 dated 16.06.2016 whereby dated the petitioners have already been granted the arrears of first Assured Career Progression in unrevised scale; c. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) /order(s) /direction(s), directing the respondents to revise the pensionary benefits to all the petitioners accordingly; d. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are very much entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2026:JHHC:17691 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the post of Block Employment Social Security Officer in between 1983 and 1985. Thereafter, the petitioners were posted as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). Pursuant to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the services of the petitioners fell into the cadre of State of Jharkhand. 4. However, in view of the seniority and requirement, the petitioners have been asked to perform the higher post known as District Social Welfare Officer. While functioning as DSWO, after attaining the age of superannuation, these petitioners retired from services in between 2010 to 2016. Vide Notification dated 16.06.2016 the petitioners have been granted the benefits of MACP and the arrears of the same. 5. In a different case, writ(s) was filed being WP(S) No. 2350 of 2016 nad WP(S) No. 5141 of 2011 wherein it was prayed that the pay scale of the CDPO be enhanced w.e.f. 01.01.1996 from Rs.6,500-10,000/- to Rs.8,000-13,500/-. The writ was allowed and it travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court which also upheld the judgment of this Court. 6. Pursuant to that the Principal Secretary of the Department of Finance issued a Resolution No. 459 dated 09.02.2023 whereby the pay scale of the CDPO was corrected in terms of Resolution No. 3589 dated 17.12.2007 2026:JHHC:17691 from Rs.6,500-10,000/- to Rs.8,000-13,500/- and decided to grant notional benefits w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and the actual benefits w.e.f. 01.03.2007. 7. Some of the petitioners of the present case had also moved before this Court in WP(S) No. 7507 of 2017 for seeking same relief as granted in the previous mentioned writ Vide order dated 21.03.2023, WP(S) No. 7507 of 2017 was disposed of with observation that if the case of the petitioners therein is similar to that case which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, order to that effect be made for those petitioners too. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 21.03.2023, a notification has been issued vide Memo No. 2265 dated 08.08.2023 whereby the pay scale of the petitioners has been revised whereby 1st ACP which has been revised from Rs.7,500- 12,000/- to Rs.10,000-15,200/-, the 2nd ACP has also been revised from Rs.12,000-16,500/- with GP of Rs.7,600/-. Further, the 3rd MACP was granted in the GP of Rs.8,700/- from the date they were entitled to. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that though the arrears of salary pursuant to grant of benefits of the 1st ACP was given notionally w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and the actual monetary benefits were paid from 15.11.2000 but after revision of pay- scale, the same has been decided to be paid notionally w.e.f. 2026:JHHC:17691 15.11.2000 and the actual benefit w.e.f. 01.03.2007 taking shelter of Clause-5 of the order dated 08.08.2023. The petitioners also filed detailed representation dated 27.05.2024, but still their grievance has not been redressed. Hence, this writ application. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were already receiving the arrears of 1st ACP w.e.f. 15.11.2000, but all of a sudden, it was stopped in view of the notification dated 08.08.2023, as such, if the petitioners are entitled for arrears, they are also entitled for revised arrears which has accrued to the petitioners in view of the order passed by the respondents. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the pay scales of already granted ACP/MACP have been revised only in accordance with the Department of Finance Resolution No. 3589 dated 17.12.2007 (para no- 4) and Resolution No. 459 dated 09.02.2023 (para-8(i)), where it has already been decided that notional benefit of pay scale revision will be payable from 15.11.2000 and actual benefit of pay scale from 01.03.2007. In view of that after the revision of pay scale of ACP/MACP, the petitioners are entitled for actual benefits and arrear only with effect from 01.03.2007. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 2026:JHHC:17691 upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the only issue of the petitioners is that though the first ACP was granted to the petitioner @Rs. 7500-12000/- w.e.f. 09.08.1999, and the entire arrears have been paid to him; however, when the pay scale was revised it was to be paid notionally w.e.f. 15.11.2000 and the actual benefit of pay-scale was granted to the petitioner from 01.03.2007, and as such, even ACP has been decided to be given to them w.e.f. 01.03.2007. 13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(S) No. 2350 of 2010 with WP(S) No. 5141 of 2011, as affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was confined to revision of the pay scale from Rs. 6500-10500/- to Rs. 8000-13500/- and did not deal with grant of ACP benefits as such. As such, once the aforesaid revision was accepted, then pursuant to the directions passed in WP(S) No. 7507 of 2017, the ACP scales had to be re-worked, inasmuch as, the ACP revision is not an independent exercise but merely a consequential revision flowing from the revised pay scale. 14. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that since they were already receiving actual monetary benefits of the 1st ACP with effect from 15.11.2000, the respondents cannot postpone the actual 2026:JHHC:17691 date to 01.03.2007. 15. In this regard, a distinction is required to be drawn between a case where an accrued ACP benefit is retrospectively altered and a case where the ACP revision is merely a consequential exercise arising out of a subsequent correction of the feeder pay scale. The present case falls in the latter category. 16. This Court further finds that the original entitlement of the petitioners to the benefit of 1st ACP extended thereunder have not been withdrawn. What has been revised is only the quantum of financial upgradation consequent upon correction of the feeder pay scale. Therefore, the present case is not one involving withdrawal of an accrued or vested ACP benefit; but one concerning determination of the effective date for release of enhanced monetary benefits arising out of a subsequent pay-scale revision. 17. And the question, therefore, which arises for consideration is that if the corrected pay scale itself is payable only notionally till 28.02.2007; how can the consequential ACP calculated on that corrected scale be actually payable before the corrected scale itself becomes financially operative? 18. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the specific 2026:JHHC:17691 stand taken by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.11.2024 that the State Government, vide Resolution No. 3589 dated 17.12.2007, upon due consideration and recommendation of the Fitment Committee vide Finance Department’s Resolution No. 660/V-(2) dated 08.02.1999 w.e.f. 07.01.1996, decided to revise the pay scale of the basic category of State Service Officers from Rs. 6500-10500/- to Rs. 8000-13500/- in conformity with the corresponding pay structure of the Central Government wherein the notional benefit of such pay scale revision would be admissible with effect from 15.11.2000; whereas the actual monetary benefit would accrue only from 01.03.2007. 19. The respondents have further contended that in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 2350 of 2016 and WP(S) No. 5141 of 2011, the Finance Department issued Resolution No. 459 dated 09.02.2023, whereby the approved pay scale of CDPO was revised from Rs. 6500-10500/- to Rs. 8000-13500/- and it was specifically provided that the notional benefit would be extended from 15.11.2000 and the actual monetary benefit from 01.03.2007; and as such, the consequential revision of the ACP benefits could not have been granted on any different footing and, accordingly, the revised 1st ACP was 2026:JHHC:17691 also made admissible notionally from 15.11.2000 and actually from 01.03.2007. 20. This Court is of the considered view that the revised ACP scales are merely consequential to the corrected pay scale granted under Resolution No. 459 dated 09.02.2023; hence, the revised monetary benefits cannot travel beyond the financial implementation date prescribed for the corrected pay scale itself. 21. Consequently, in absence of any specific provision providing for actual payment of the revised ACP benefits from 15.11.2000, this Court finds no justification for directing release of such benefits prior to 01.03.2007. 22. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. The petitioners, having accepted the benefit of the enhanced ACP scales flowing from the revised pay-scale correction, cannot simultaneously seek to disregard the conditions subject to which such revision has been extended, i.e., notional effect from 15.11.2000 and actual monetary effect from 01.03.2007. In other words, the petitioners cannot be permitted to cherry-pick the beneficial aspects of the enhanced revised pay scale while refusing to be governed by the stipulations attached thereto. 2026:JHHC:17691 23. It further appears from para 5 of the counter affidavit dated 17.10.2024 that after submission of the application by the petitioners for revision of the pay scale of their already granted ACP/MACP according to the aforesaid resolution dated 09.02.2023, the Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security Department, Government of Jharkhand sought the advice of Department of Finance, and only after receiving instructions and advice from there, the pay scale of already granted ACP/MACP of the petitioners have been revised vide all three Notifications dated 08.08.2023. 24. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 has also reiterated that fixation of pay and determination of financial benefits are matters falling primarily within the executive domain and the Courts ought to exercise restraint unless the policy decision is shown to be patently arbitrary or irrational. In the facts of the present case, no such arbitrariness has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference by this Court. For ready reference, the relevant para of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “37. Observing that fixation of pay and determination of responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to take a decision, the Courts should approach such matters with restraint, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., (2002) 6 SCC 72 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 822] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC pp. 79-80, para 10) “10.. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to 2026:JHHC:17691 be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. … That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the Court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity in the action of the respondents in granting the revised ACP benefits notionally with effect from 15.11.2000 and actually with effect from 01.03.2007 in terms of the said Notifications, all dated 08.08.2023. Accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15 /06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 19.06.2026