2026:JHHC:18249 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6647 of 2024 ….….. Dr. Amreshwar Prasad, aged about 73 years, son of Late Brij Narayan Lal, resident of Village-Jagtouli, P.O.- Jagtouli, P.S.-Bhore, District-Gopalganj (Bihar). ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Secretary, Department of Planning cum Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. The office of Accountant General through Principle Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.IV C.A.V. ON: 13/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:22/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs; (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner (Ayush Medical Officer, retired) w.e.f. the date of his appointment, since in the absence of such confirmation, the services related benefits, is not being awarded to him; (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner, pursuant to his confirmation in service of the department; 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Homoeopathic Medical Officer vide order dated 2026:JHHC:18249 2 23.06.1980 (Annexure-1) and was posted at the State Health Dispensary. Upon bifurcation of the cadre, he was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and continued in service under the respondent. 4. During the course of his service, the petitioner was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP vide orders dated 24.02.2004 and 22.12.2005 respectively. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 246 dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure-3), the petitioner was exempted from appearing in the departmental examination, which was otherwise a requirement for confirmation in service. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 05.05.2009. But he was ultimately exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the department itself recommended release of the petitioner's pensionary benefits vide Memo No. 71(19) dated 20.09.2016 (Annexure-4) addressed to the Accountant General. Thereafter, in a departmental meeting held on 27.02.2013 (Annexure-5), a decision was taken that in cases where ACP/MACP benefits had already been granted, the services of such Medical Officers would be treated as confirmed, subject to fulfilment of the requirement of departmental examination. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that since he had already been granted ACP benefits and had also been exempted from appearing in the departmental examination, he became entitled 2026:JHHC:18249 3 to confirmation of his services in terms of the aforesaid departmental decision; however, vide communication dated 22.02.2024, the respondents required the petitioner to furnish documents relating to passing of the departmental examination for consideration of his case for confirmation. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-7) stating that the requirement of passing the departmental examination was not applicable to him in view of the exemption granted vide Memo No. 246 dated 30.12.2008. Aggrieved by the non-confirmation of his services till date despite the aforesaid facts and communications, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the services of the petitioner ought to have been considered for confirmation on the basis of his service record during the probation period and subsequent departmental proceedings could not have been taken into account for denying such confirmation. In support of his claim, he has relied upon Government Letter No. 7225 dated 06.06.1981 and the departmental order dated 16.12.1998 (Annexure-8), which provides a mandate to consider the confirmation of employment on completion of two years of temporary service. He further submitted that the petitioner was granted first and second ACP benefits in 2004 and 2005 respectively, 2026:JHHC:18249 4 making his employment to be considered as confirmed as per the departmental decision dated 27.02.2013. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was exempted from passing the departmental examination vide Memo No. 246 dated 30.12.2008, as such, making the demand of the respondent for documents relating to passing of the departmental examination through letter dated 22.02.2024 is arbitrary, since, the requirement itself stood waived in this case. He also submitted that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was completed and he was ultimately exonerated and the department itself recommended release of pensionary benefits in his favour. He further submitted, with regard to claim of the MACP/DACP, that after the dismissal order was quashed in W.P.(S) No. 4994 of 2011, the period during which he remained out of service, i.e., 17.07.2010 to 31.12.2013, was regularized by departmental notification dated 08.09.2016, as such the petitioner is entitled to the said benefits. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the grant of ACP benefits or preliminary benefits does not automatically result in confirmation of service and the same needs to be considered independently in accordance with the applicable service rules and departmental procedures. 2026:JHHC:18249 5 He further submitted that a vigilance/criminal case against the petitioner arising out of the same allegations as to the departmental proceedings, is still pending and chargesheet has already been filed in the same, and as such, it was decided to keep the service confirmation case of the petitioner pending till the final disposal of the criminal case related to corruption. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the petitioner was appointed as Homoeopathic Medical Officer on 23.06.1980 and thereafter, he has rendered his services for the respondent authorities and superannuated on 31.12.2013. As far as the benefits of ACPs are concerned, they have been released in his favour vide notifications dated 24.02.2004 and 22.12.2005, respectively. 10. The case of the petitioner is that he was exempted from passing the departmental examination, vide departmental order dated 30.12.2008; however, in one of the notices, that was issued to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-6, it has been demanded, that the petitioner should provide the documents of passing of departmental examination, for service confirmation. 11. With the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has come before this Court praying for confirmation of his services, as because he has already provided the order of exemption from 2026:JHHC:18249 6 the departmental examination, annexed already as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, being departmental order dated 30.12.2008, to the Respondents, but his case for confirmation of service is not being considered. 12. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and they have contended that the case of the petitioner for confirmation of his services cannot be considered in view of the fact that one criminal case is pending against him, being Vigilance Case No.15 of 2009, dated 22.07.2009, which is still pending and during the pendency of the criminal case, his services cannot be confirmed. 13. It appears that one criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner close to the fag end of services, in the year 2009. Prior to that, the petitioner had already rendered more than 20 years of services. The criminal case has remained pending for more than 10 years even though he has been cooperating in the trial. It further appears that the case is lying pending at the stage of prosecution evidence and for non-appearance of the Inquiry Officer. 14. This Court finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 23.06.1980 and has rendered about three decades of service under the respondent-State. It is not in dispute that he was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP vide 2026:JHHC:18249 7 notifications dated 24.02.2004 and 22.12.2005 respectively and was also exempted from passing the departmental examination vide Memo No. 246 dated 30.12.2008. 15. It further appears from the records that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner culminated in his exoneration and the department itself recommended release of his pensionary benefits. 16. The sole ground on which the respondents are withholding confirmation of service is the pendency of Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2009. 17. The Court is of the considered view that for the delay in criminal case, the petitioner should not be blamed, in view of the facts that he has already been granted the benefit of one ACP and after retirement, pensionary benefits are also being paid to him. All these benefits cannot be paid to an employee, if his services have not been confirmed. 18. Under such circumstances, the services of the petitioner shall be confirmed and he shall be paid the benefit of pending DACP, etc. 19. In this regard, it is profitable to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman1, wherein it has been held that mere pendency of a preliminary inquiry or criminal 1 (1991) 4 SCC 109 2026:JHHC:18249 8 investigation is not enough to deny promotion/service benefits and an employee cannot be treated as guilty merely because proceedings are pending. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted herein-below: “16. ... The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- authorities that when there are serious allegations 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 persons, 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…” (emphasis supplied) 20. In view of the settled positions of law that an employee shall not suffer due to the long pendency of a criminal case, particularly when the delay is not attributable to him, the respondents are directed to treat the services of the petitioner as confirmed and to issue the necessary consequential orders in accordance with law. The respondents shall further extend to the petitioner all consequential benefits flowing from such confirmation, including the benefit of DACP, if otherwise admissible, and undertake consequential revision of his pensionary and other post-retiral benefits. 21. The entire exercise, including issuance of necessary orders and payment of consequential monetary benefits, shall be 2026:JHHC:18249 9 completed within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 22. It is, however, made clear that in the event the pending criminal proceeding culminates in any finding adverse to the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondents to take such action as may be permissible under law. 23. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ petition stands allowed. 24. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:22/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 25.06.2026