2026:JHHC:11355 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 1798 of 2022 --------- Kamakhya Chatterjee, aged about 73 years, son of Sudhanshu Bhushan Chatterjee, resident of R-8/3; P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikela-Kharsawan (Jharkhand). ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Jharkhand State Housing Board, through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, at Harmu, P.O. Harmu and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Executive Engineer, Dhanbad Division, Jharkhand State Housing Board, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Apurv, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Sweta Shukla, Advocate --------- 13/Dated:-18.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents to quash the order dated 06.09 2021 (Annexure-3), passed by Respondent No. 2 to the extent the rejection of A.C.P/MACP of the petitioner is concerned whereby and whereunder the Respondent no. 2 has rejected the claim for A.C.P./MACP of the petitioner solely on the ground of break in service. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, commanding upon the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for the grant of benefits under the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. along with annual increments of salary for the period of 1975 till the date of his retirement i.e., 30.06.2009 along with statutory interest and other consequential benefits and arrears thereupon for which the Petitioner is deprived of due to non-consideration of his case at the hands of concerned Respondent Authorities after serving for 34 years; iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to pay statutory interest @ 6% per annum for the delayed release of arrears of salary to the tune of Rs. 8,54,158/- and Rs. 2,61,184/- which has been paid on 16.08.2021 and 17.02.2022, though the petitioner retired way back on 30.06.2009; iv. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to issue a copy of Service Book to the Petitioner; 3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner was appointed on 2026:JHHC:11355 2 11.10.1974 and joined on 22.10.1974 on the post of Regular Junior Engineer (Civil), in Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2009 from the post of Regular Junior Engineer (Civil) from Dhanbad Division, Jharkhand State Housing Board. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. (S). No. 3575 of 2020 before this Court for release of his retiral dues which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2021 wherein it was directed to the petitioner to file fresh representation before Respondent no. 2 within two weeks from the date of the order and the respondent was directed to decide the same within 6 weeks and if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, then the benefits shall be accrued in favour of the petitioner within further 6 weeks thereafter. 4. Thereafter, a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 443 of 2021 was initiated by the Petitioner for non-compliance of the aforesaid order and subsequently, the Petitioner was paid certain amount of the admitted dues but the prayer for ACP/ MACP was rejected solely on the ground of break in service. The contempt case was subsequently dropped vide order dated 11.03.2022 giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under law. 5. Further, respondent no. 2 vide order dated 06.09.2021 rejected the claim for the grant of ACP/ MACP of the petitioner which he was entitled for and as such the petitioner has challenged the same in accordance with law. 6. The fact further reveals that after retirement of the 2026:JHHC:11355 3 Petitioner, the Executive Engineer wrote a letter to the Secretary, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide Memo. No. 215 Dhanbad dated 20.03.2010 to calculate and release the payment of the salary and other retiral dues of the petitioner. Vide another Memo no. 216 dated 20.03.2010, the Executive Engineer again issued an Office Order by which a direction for grant of annual increment of the petitioner had been made but despite such order, no such increment has been awarded to the present Petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended for the aforesaid period due to the latches on part of one Arjun Prasad, the then Engineer-in-charge, Bihar State Housing Board who did not disclose the fact that the Petitioner had taken leave with prior permission which is very much evident from Letter No. 3550 dated 11.12.1989. 8. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ application is that initially, in the impugned order, at page-21 of the writ application, for the purpose of family pension it has been stated that family pension forms has not been filled-up by the petitioner. However, pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 17.01.2023, the petitioner was directed to furnish the pension form as per the pay-scale accepted by the respondent JSHB. 9. Pursuant thereto, learned counsel submits that the pension paper has been duly filled-up and the pension has been fixed at a very lower value in view of the fact that since ACP/MACP benefit for which the petitioner was entitled has not been given. 10. Learned counsel contended that now, the only dispute 2026:JHHC:11355 4 which subsists, is with regard to payment of ACP/MACP benefit. She further draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order particularly, page 21 of the writ application, wherein at Serial No.VII it has been stated that since there was a service break of the petitioner; as such, financial upgradation has not been granted. 11. Thereafter, on 02.07.2024, learned counsel for the respondents were directed to bring on record any chit of paper with regard to break in service of the petitioner. For brevity, order dated 02.07.2024 is extracted hereinbelow: “Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of para-13 of the counter-affidavit, there was a break in service and as such petitioner is not entitled for the benefits claimed for. Petitioner is directed to file reply to the counter-affidavit. As prayed for, put up this case after three weeks.” 12. Thereafter, several adjournments were given in order to produce any order which can indicate that there was break in service of the petitioner. 13. However, Mrs. Sweta Shukla, learned counsel representing the Housing Board fairly submits that since the matter is very old, they could not find out any order with regard to break in service. Thus, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that no order has been passed with regard to break in service and since there is no order to that effect, the ground taken in the impugned order is not sustainable. 14. During course of hearing, Mrs. Sweta Shukla, learned counsel for the housing board raised a ground of laches, inasmuch as, the petitioner stood retired in the year 2009, however, the first writ application was filed in the year 2020 and 2026:JHHC:11355 5 thereafter, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3575 of 2020, this writ application has been filed. However, after going through the impugned order, it does not transpire that with respect to ACP/MACP benefit, the respondent has taken the ground of laches. 15. The law is well settled that the grounds of the impugned order; neither can be improved by way of any affidavit, nor by any sort of argument. Moreover, the financial benefit of a retired employee can be considered as continuing dispute; as such, this Court is of the firm opinion that on the one hand, there is no ground of laches in the impugned order and on the other hand, the retiral benefit or any other service benefit for which the petitioner was entitled at the time of retirement and he has not received the same, can be considered as continuing dispute; as such, the argument of laches on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable to this Court. 16. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the instant writ application stands allowed and the respondent-Housing Board is directed to re-calculate the benefits by including the ACP/MACP benefit, which was prevalent at that time and pass an appropriate order and further, re-fix the pension accordingly. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 18, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 05/05/2026