Jharkhand High Court
Binod Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2809 of 2023
1. Binod Kumar, aged about 61 years, son of Late Suresh Prasad Singh,
resident of Gandhi Nagar, Gadra, P.O.- Gadra, P.S.- Parsudih, Dist-
East Singhbhum, Bihar.
2. Lalan Prasad, aged about 66 yers, son of Late Amir Chand Prasad,
resident of Vill- Mirzapur, Ward No. 16, Near S.P. Jain College More,
P.O. & P.S.- Sasaram, Dist- Rohtas, Bihar.
3. Kamakhaya Narayan Singh, aged about 63 years, son of Late Shiv
Pujan Singh, resident of Village- Ami, P.O.- Ami, P.S.- Dighwara,
Dist- Saran, Bihar.
4. Nabonath Mishra, aged about 64 years, son of Late Niras Mishra,
resident of Village- Baharban Belahi, P.O.- Baharban, Belahi, P.S.-
Kaluahi, Dist- Madhubani, Bihar.
.... ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster
Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
5. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand.
6. Inspector General of Police (Human Rights), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
7. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
8. Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
9. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Budget), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
10. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Ranchi.
11. State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
12. Accountant General, Ranchi. ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II
For the Resp. No. 11 : Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 12 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
------
6/ 11.11.2024 The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for
quashing of the Minutes of Meeting of the Central Selection Board, headed
by Director General of Police, Jharkhand, so far it relates to the petitioners,
whereby, the case of the petitioners for grant of 3 rd MACP has been kept
pending on the ground that the petitioners have not appeared in the
promotional training program. Further, prayer has been made to pay the
arrears of salary and revise the pension upon grant of 3 rd MACP with effect
from the date when the petitioners have completed 30 years of their
respective services.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case
of Jharkhand Police Association Wireless, Jharkhand & State of
Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2007 (4) JCR 443 (Jhr), wherein this Court
after hearing the parties has held that "If there is any delay in deputing an
employee for training either due to non- availability of seats in the training
centre or for any other reason, he cannot be deprived of the benefit of ACP."
The Court has further held that "the stand of the respondents to deny the
benefit of ACP from the cut-off date on the ground of acquiring training
later in the time is not justifiable."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the
case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
2023 SCC OnLine SC 496, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has
considered all the aspects of the matter in respect of grant of ACP/MACP
and the object thereto and it has been held in paragraph nos. 12 to 20, which
reads as follows:-
" 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.
15. In sum and substance, both ACP and MACP Schemes are
schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are
unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief
in the form of financial benefits. Accordingly, the schemes provide for
regular financial upgradation on completion of 12-24 years and 10-20-
30 years of service without promotion. They are incentive schemes for
the employees who complete a particular period of service but without
getting promotion for lack of promotional avenues. The effect of the
schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of
the scheme.
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 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.
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 matter 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 nonfunctional 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.
19. In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that
the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the
post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion
on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is
purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without
actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the
opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly
hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated
28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP,
as directed by the writ court.
20. We have not considered it necessary to deal with the two cases
on the basis of which the Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions
and granted the benefit of the ACP to the appellants, as we have
independently of those two decisions have considered and held that the
appellants are entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme
on completion of requisite regular service ignoring the higher
qualification prescribed for the next higher post as grant of such benefit
is not actually a promotion but only financial upgradation and if the
higher qualification is insisted it would frustrate the purpose of the
entire scheme."
4. Learned counsel further submits that relying on the aforesaid
judgments, this Court in the case of Somnath Ojha Vs. State of Jharkhand
& Ors., decided in W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2022 held that passing of any
departmental examination or any training program is not a sina qua non for
extending the benefit of ACP/MACP to the employees of the State
Government. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is
same and similar to the aforesaid cases and as such, a direction may be given
to the respondents to treat the present petitioners in similar fashion, as that
of the aforesaid cases.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents very fairly
submits that the issue involved in this case has already been decided by this
Court and as such, the present petitioners may also be extended the same
benefits, as has been given to the petitioners of the aforesaid cases.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that
the issue involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this
Court in the case of Jharkhand Police Association Wireless, Jharkhand &
State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), wherein, it has been held that if there is
any delay in deputing the employee for training, the employee cannot be
deprived of the benefit of ACP. Further this Court in the case of Somnath
Ojha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided in W.P.(S) No. 5307 of 2022,
relying on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Amresh
Kumar Singh (supra) held that passing of any departmental examination or
any training program is not a sina qua non for extending the benefit of
ACP/MACP to the employees of the State Government. Further, similar
issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Jharkhand Police
Mens Association Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided in W.P.(S) No.
3793 of 2019, wherein the Court has directed the respondents to extend the
benefit of ACP/MACP in the light of the aforesaid judgments.
7. In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, as also in view of the aforesaid legal propositions, this Court is of
the view that since the case of the petitioners is same and similar to that of
the aforesaid cases, the petitioners are entitled for grant of 3 rd MACP on
completion of 30 years of their respective services. The respondents are
directed to extend the benefit of 3rd MACP to the petitioners with effect from
the date of completion of their 30 years of respective services, irrespective of
the fact whether they have completed the training or not.
8. Needless to say that the arrears of salary on account of grant of
3rd MACP and the revised pension after grant of 3rd MACP shall be extended
to the petitioners within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
stands allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr./ Aditi
