2026:JHHC:11704 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6582 of 2025 ---------- Anandi Choudhary, aged about 66 years, son of late Jagdish Choudhary, resident of Sirsi, P.O. Khurd, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribag. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Van Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag, Forest Division, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, Dist. Hazaribag. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Sankalp, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA ---------- 04/ 21.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure-3), passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected for grant of 2nd ACP/MACP. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant 2nd ACP in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 from 08.04.1997 with arrears as he was appointed on 08.04.1977 as Forest Guard. The petitioner has further prayed for grant of MACP benefits as he completed 30 years of service on 08.04.2007. 2. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the sole ground for non-payment of ACP benefit is that the petitioner is not having matriculation or higher qualification and therefore, he is not entitled for 2nd ACP. From the records, it appears that 1st ACP was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 09.08.1999. 3. So far as the issue of non-matriculation is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute that now it is settled law that ACP benefits cannot be denied on the said ground. However, he has stated that the petitioner has been punished in several departmental proceedings before he was granted the benefits of 1st ACP. 2026:JHHC:11704 2 4. However, he is unable to show any order. Moreover, there is no statement in the impugned order with regard to any punishment and as stated hereinabove, the only ground for not giving the benefits of 2nd ACP was that the petitioner was non-matriculate. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, denying the benefits of 2nd ACP only on the ground of non-matriculation is not tenable in law. In the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt the said issue in detail and came to the conclusion that ACP Scheme was imposed on the recommendation of 5th PRC and its object has been reiterated in several judgments as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation. It has also been held that both ACP and MACP benefits are devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail the adequate promotion opportunities, gets some relief in the form of financial benefits. 6. Having regard to the above, the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure-3), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the ACP benefit strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and pay the same to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment as per the applicable circular. The entire exercise shall be completed by the concerned respondents within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 22nd April, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496