2026:JHHC:19611 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3871 of 2026 ---------- NUNULAL HEMBRAM, aged about 76 years, Son of Late Girish Hembram, Resident of Panchayat- Basaha, Vill- Basaha P.O.- Basaha & P.S.-Palojori, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar District- Deoghar. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner Cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar District Deoghar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Sarath, Deoghar P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand. 5. The District Account Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District - Deoghar, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC(L&C)-III Mr. Jazeb Iqbal, AC to SC(L&C)-III ---------- 02/ 01.07.2026 In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to extend the benefits of ACP/MACP, particularly, 3rd MACP benefits to the petitioner, due to be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2008. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to revise and re-fix his pension as per the recommendation of 7th PRC inclusive of grant of 3rd MACP and further to pay arrears accrued thereupon. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is entitled for 3rd MACP which is due to be paid w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and recommendation has also been forwarded to the competent authority by the Block Development Officer but even after more than a decade, the 2026:JHHC:19611 2 petitioner has been denied the benefits of 3rd MACP. Accordingly, necessary order be passed by giving direction to the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since counter- affidavit has not been filed, if the petitioner so wishes, he may approach the concerned respondents for redressal of his grievances. 4. Having regard to the above submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the petitioner to file fresh representation annexing the copy of recommendation which has been sent in favour of the petitioner by the Block Development Officer, before the respondent No. 2. The moment the respondent No. 2 will receive any such representation; he shall verify the records of the case and take an informed decision in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the amount which would be found admissible shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of three weeks and further, necessary revision be made in the pensionary benefits. 6. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 1st July, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded 07.07.2026