Jharkhand High Court
Yugal Kishore Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 1259 of 2020
----------
Yugal Kishore Ram ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Additional Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
... .... ...Respondents
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrey Mishra, AC to GA-III
-----------
04/ 15.03.2021 Heard the Parties.
2. Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with a prayer for setting aside the
reasoned order dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure-4), whereby claim of the petitioner has
been rejected regarding grant of 2nd and 3rd MACP. Further prayer has been made for
grant of statutory interest on gratuity as the amount of gratuity was paid to the
petitioner after four years from the date of his retirement.
3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as
Class-IV employee in the office of Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation on
02.07.1973 as Driver. Thereafter, on 08.04.1997, his services was absorbed in the
State Commission, Consumer Protection Department of the then Govt. of Bihar. It is
the case of the petitioner that though he was entitled for 2nd and 3rd ACP/ MACP but
the same was illegally withheld. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed W.P.(S).
No. 1241 of 2010 and the same was disposed of on 25.07.2012 with a direction to
take decision regarding extension of benefits of ACP/MACP to the petitioner within
a period of four weeks. Thereafter, when nothing was done, petitioner again filed
W.P.(S). No. 2958 of 2014 for extending the benefits of ACP/MACP and the Hon'ble
Court was pleased to direct the respondent to take decision with respect to the claim
of the petitioner regarding payment of the same.
However, the respondent authority vide order dated 13.05.2015, rejected the
claim of the petitioner regarding extension of 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP benefits to him,
which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application.
4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP as he had rendered 35
years of services under the respondent-Department. To support his contention, Mr.
Dubey places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of
Parsuram Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 3672 of 2009), and
submits that in view of the said judgment, petitioner is entitled for benefits of 1st, 2nd
and 3rd ACP/MACP. Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents being the
instrumentality of State are bound to work within the four corners of law and to act in
accordance with law.
5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Shrey Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for benefits of 2nd
and 3rd MACP. Mr. Mishra further argues that petitioner has already been paid the
benefits of 1st ACP for which he was entitled for. Learned counsel draws the attention
of the Court towards impugned order dated 13.05.2015 and submits that petitioner
was initially appointed as Driver in the year 1973 under Bihar State Food and Civil
Supply Corporation and thereafter, on 08.04.1997 petitioner's services were absorbed
in the State Commission, Consumer Protection Department of the then Govt. of
Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that provision of ACP/ MACP is guided by
Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand's Circular No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 and
services under Corporation, Boards and similar other Institutions does not qualify for
ACP/MACP. Admittedly, the petitioner served for 35 years and 10 months but he
rendered 23 years of services under Bihar Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Bihar,
Patna and only 12 years services under State Government and as such, he is entitled
for 1st ACP only, which has already been granted to the petitioner. Hence, there is no
illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP/ MACP.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this
Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the
respondent-State while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd and 3rd
ACP/MACP. Petitioner has earlier approached this Court wherein this Court was
pleased to direct the respondent-authorities to calculate the amount of ACP/MACP
and extend the same to him, if the petitioner is found entitled.
After going through the records and the impugned, this Court is of the view that
it has rightly been inferred that petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of 2 nd and 3rd
ACP/ MACP. The reliance of the petitioner to the case of Parsuram Choudhary
(supra) is not at all attracted in the instant case. It has been well settled that the
services rendered by an employee in Corporation/ Private Sector shall be calculated
for the purpose of pension as per the Statutes and prevalent Rules and not for the
purpose of any other benefits. However, since petitioner has been paid the amount of
gratuity belatedly i.e. after a period of four years from the date of retirement and no
explanation has been given by the State of Jharkhand, I hereby direct the respondent-
State to make payment of statutory interest over the gratuity amount paid to
petitioner from the date of retirement till payment was made.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
