2026:JHHC:4267 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 861 of 2026 ---- Surendra Kumar Singh son of Late Sheo Narayan Singh, resident of Village Bhojiya, PO Kamta (Lame), PS Chatra, Dist. Chatra. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Van Bhawan, PO PS Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, South Chatra Division, PO & PS Chatra, Dist. Chatra. 5. Accountant General, PO & PS Doranda, Dist. Ranchi. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC V Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate ---- 02/11.02.2026 By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For quashing of office order No.26 dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure 3) whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner has been rejected for the grant of 2nd ACP and MACP. b) For direction to the respondents to provide the benefits of 2nd ACP as a scale of 6500-10500/- to the petitioner from the date of 01.06.2006 with entire arrear monetary benefits with interest, as he has been appointed in the service on 01.06.1982 as a Forest Guard. c) For direction to the respondents to grant the benefits of MACP to the petitioner as the petitioner has completed the service period of 30 years on 01.06.2012 with entire monetary benefits with interest. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 01.06.1982 as a Forest Guard and superannuated on 30.06.2022. He was granted his 1st ACP earlier. As despite several representations, the petitioner was not being granted 2nd ACP, 2026:JHHC:4267 -: 2 :- he had moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.819 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation and direction to the respondents to consider the case and take appropriate informed decision. Thereafter the petitioner made a fresh representation before the respondent authorities, but vide office order No.26 dated 05.04.2025, his representation was rejected citing that the petitioner is non-matric and is ineligible for grant of 2nd ACP. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of 2nd ACP with effect from 01.06.2006 and for grant of MACP on completion of 30 years with effect from 01.06.2012, as he was appointed in the service on 01.06.1982 as a Forest Guard. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the ground for rejecting the claim for grant of benefits of ACP as cited by the respondents is unsustainable. He contends that ACP scheme is designed to provide financial upgradation to employees suffering from stagnation, irrespective of their educational qualification. He further contends that eligibility for ACP is not contingent upon possessing higher qualification. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court: - (i) Amresh Kumar Singh & Others versus State of Bihar & Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 496] (ii) Krishna Kumar Oraon versus State of Jharkhand & Others [W.P.(S) No.6081 of 2014] 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner for grant of benefits of ACP has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not a matriculate. In support of the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that in terms of the Bihar Forest Manual Volume-II Third Edition 1982, the requisite qualification for a Forest Guard is matriculation. 5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records. The claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of matriculation. There is nothing on record to deny that the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 01.06.1982 and he superannuated from service on 30.06.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amresh Kumar Singh and Others versus State of Bihar and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 at paragraphs 2026:JHHC:4267 -: 3 :- 16, 17 and 18, while taking note of three Judges Bench decision in Union of India v. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, has observed as under:- “16. In Union of India v. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits. 17. It was further observed that fulfillment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non- functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated. 18. In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the other being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on non-functional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for such non-functional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.” 6. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner is entitled to the benefits of 2nd ACP and MACP. The impugned order No.26 dated 05.04.2025 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2026:JHHC:4267 -: 4 :- petitioner and decide his entitlement by a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The respondents shall ensure extending benefits of such entitlement to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks from the date of passing of the reasoned order. 7. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 11th February, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 17.02.2026