2026:JHHC:1089 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1340 of 2019 …… Yosoda Devi, Aged 66 years, wife of Late Basudeo Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Jhalpo, Shib Nagar, Ward No. VII, P.O. and P.S. Jhumritelaiya, District-Koderma. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 3.The Deputy Collector, Establishment, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum. 4. The Block Development Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District-West Singhbhum …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Adv Ms. Ayushi, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV …… 09/15.01.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent- authorities to consider the case of the petitioner-husband who was employee before the respondent, for grant of 1st ACP and 2nd ACP which has not been granted to him or to this petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to give her family pension as she is legally wadded wife of erstwhile employee. 2. The issue of ACP has now been set at rest in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh and Others versus State of 2026:JHHC:1089 2 Bihar and Others1 wherein at para 12, 13, 14 and 17 it has been held as under:- “12. It may be worth noting that the ACP scheme was enforced on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in context with Group C and D employees and it provided monetary benefit to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service who were not able to get promotion. The scheme as such was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay scale for the grant of financial upgradation only without grant of actual promotion. The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion. 13. At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period. 14. The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher- grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria 17. It was further observed that fulfilment 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.” 3. The respondent has taken the ground for non- granting ACP, is that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination. 4. After going through the above referred judgment, it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that fulfilment of educational qualification described under the recruitment rules for the purpose of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion; as such the ground of non-passing of departmental examination has no legs to stand in the eye of law. 5. The respondent has also taken a ground of latches; however, the fact remains that initially the petitioner preferred a writ application for quashing of his dismissal order in CWJC No. 2627 of 1992(R) which was allowed in 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 2026:JHHC:1089 3 2001. Thereafter, he also filed W.P.(S) No. 1037 of 2006 in respect to the intervening period of salary as well as the suspension period salary. The said writ application was also allowed on 13.04.2006. Finally, the petitioner had also approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4291of 2008 dated 23.01.2017 when the Respondents have granted extra ordinary leave to the petitioner. The said writ application was also allowed and the order has been quashed. All these facts are appearing in the pleadings; as such even the ground of latches does not have any lags to stand in the eye of law. 6. So far as the payer of family pension is concerned; the respondents are directed to verify the records as to whether the family pension is being paid and further after giving benefit of ACP if the same will be modified then the same shall also be paid to the petitioner including the arrears of family pension as well as ACP. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J) 15.01.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded 28.01.2026