[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sachchidanand Prasad vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 15 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 253 of 2023
----
1.Sachchidanand Prasad, aged about-62 years, Son of Late
Mahadeva Sharan Indu, Resident of Qr. No.-D/64, Road
No.-2, P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O.-Patratu, P.S. Patratu, Dist.
Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
2. Ramesh Kumar, aged about-63 years, son of Janardan
Prasad Verma, resident of Qr. No. EO/95, Janta Nagar,
P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh;
PIN-829119.
3. Kumar Birendra Narayan Singh, aged about-62 years, son
of Late Ram Bilas Singh, resident of C/4, Kedarnath Roy
Apartment, Tharpakhna, H.B. Road P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar,
District-Ranchi, PIN-834001.
4. Akshay Kumar, aged about-64 years, son of Late Ram
Briksha Singh, resident of Gulmohar Park, Flat No. 401/B,
Mahua Toli, Nomkom, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi,
PIN-834010.
5. Kumar Pankaj Varan, aged about-64 years, son of Late
Rameshwar Prasad Sinha, resident of C/34, Road No. 5,
P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District-Ramgarh PIN-
829119.
6. Amar Nath Jha, aged about-63 years, son of Late Sita
Ram Jha, resident of Qr. No. C/23, Road No. 4, P.T.P.S.,
Patratu, P.O. & P.S.-Patratu, District Ramgarh, PIN 829119.
7. Sunil Kumar Thakur, aged about-62 years, son of Late
Jagdish Thakur, resident of Shanti Apartment, 2C, Shradha
Nand Road, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, PIN-
834001.
8. Anil Kumar, aged about-63 years, son of Late Kamala
Prasad, resident of Qr. No. B/02, Kusai Colony, Doranda,
-1-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, PIN-834002.
9. Ajoy Prasad, aged about-62 years, son of Late Gauri
Shankar Sahu, resident of Flat No. 3C, Paras Apartment,
Pundag Road, Argöra, P.O. & P.S. Argora, District Ranchi,
PIN-834002.
10. Basuki Nath Jha, aged about-63 years, son of Late Yugal
Kishore Jha, resident of Qr. No. C/4, Road No. 4, P.T.P.S.,
Patratu, P.O. & P.S.-Patratu, District-Ramgarh, PIN-829119.
11. Sahdeo Sharma, aged about-64 years, son of Late Ram
Charitra Sharma, resident of Qr. No. C/20, Road No. 4,
P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S. : Patratu, District-Ramgarh,
PIN 829119.
12. Arun Kumar Prasad, aged about-63 years, son of Late
S.N. Prasad, resident of Flat No. B1/A, Green Garden,
Hesag, Hatia, P.O. & P.S.-Hatia, District Ranchi.
13. Om Prakash Shrivastava, aged about-62 years, son of
Sri. Umesh Prasad, resident of Flat No. B/6A, Green Garden
Apartment, Hesag, Hatia, P.O. & P.S-Hatia, District Ranchi.
14. Subhash Kumar Singh, aged about-62 years, son of Dr.
Narendra Pal Singh, resident of C-1, Kusai Colony, Doranda,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.
15. Siyabar Singh, aged about-63 years, son of Late Raja
Singh, resident of B-1, Durga Apartment, New Shivpuri,
Kilburn Colony, Doranda, P.O. & PS. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
16. Satish Chandra Thakur, aged about-64 years, son of
Late Jainarayan Thakur, resident Ashok Kunj, Opposite
Ashok Nagar Road No. 3, Argora, P.O. & P.S.-Argora,
District-Ranchi.
17. Nagendra Kumar, aged about-63 years, son of Sri
Vishwanath Prasad, resident of 1031, City Palace, Main
-2-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Road, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Jamshedpur, PIN-
831013.
18. Bhanu Prakash Bhagat, aged about-62 years, son of
Late Saryu Prasad Bhagat, resident of Sahebpokhar, Co-
operative Colony, Barmasia, P.O. & P.S. & District Deoghar,
PIN 814112.
19. Sahdeo Kumar Singh, aged about-64 years, son of late
Jaidrath Singh, resident of Flat No. A/104, Dristi Enclave,
Amethia Nagar, Near Gas Godown, Mahua Toli, Namkom,
P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, District-Ranchi.
20. Sudhir Kumar Pandey, aged about 62 years, son of
Narbdeshwar Pandey, resident of Flat No. 1/C3, Koyla
Vihar, Bardwan Compound, Circular Road, Opposite Hariom
Tower, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi.
....... Petitioners/Appellants.
Versus
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan
Nigam Limited, Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
3. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
Limited Engineering Building, P.Ó. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
4. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam
Limited, Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
5. Director of Finance, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
6. Director of Finance, Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam
-3-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
7. Director of Finance, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam
Limited, having office at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S-
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
8. Director of Finance, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam
Limited, having its office at Engineering Building, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
9. The General Manager (P & GA), Jharkhand Urja Vikash
Nigam Limited, having its office at Engineering Building,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
10. The Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, having its
office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
11. Deputy Accountant General (Economic & General),
having its office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S Doranda, District-
Ranchi.
...Respondents / Respondents.
12. Budhdeo Kumar, aged about-63 years, Son of Late Dilip
Kumar Singh, Resident of Flat No.-104/A, Sri Ganesh
Enclave, Magistrate Colony, Doranda, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.
Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
13. Harishchandra Thakur, aged about-63 years, son of
Ram Bharosh Thakur, resident of Qr. No. DN/48, Janta
Nagar, P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S.-Patratu, District
Ramgarh, PIN 829119.
14. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, aged about-63 years, son of Late
Kauleshwari Prasad, resident of Qr. No. B/18, Road No. 8,
P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District. Ramgarh,
PIN-829119.
15. Jay Prakash, aged about-62 years, son of Sri Ganesh
Prasad Yadav, resident of Flat No. 2C, Priyadarshi Enclave,
-4-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, PIN-834002.
16. Prabhakar Jha, aged about-63 years, son of Sri
Indrakant Jha, resident of Qr. No. C/06, Road No. 4,
P.T.P.S., Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh,
PIN-829119.
17. Ramesh Kumar Sinha, aged about-64 years, son of Late
Pitambar Lal Karma, resident of Qr. No. C/33, Road No. 5,
PT.P.S. Patratu, P.O. & P.S.-Patratu, District Ramgarh, PIN-
829119.
18. Subhash Mishra, aged about 63 years, son of Sri
Sheonath Mishra, resident of House No. 58, Janki Heritage,
At & P.O. Tetri via Namkom, P.S.-Namkom, District Ranchi,
PIN-834010.
19. Kishore Kumar Shrivastava, aged about-63 years, son,
of Late R.S.P. Shrivastava, resident of Flat No. 301, Nandan
Enclave, Gurudwara Road, Hatia, P.O. & P.S. Hatia,
District-Ranchi, PIN-834003.
20. Uma Kant Singh, aged about-64 years, son of Dr.
Ramakant Singh, resident of Sipara, P.O. & P.S. Kankarbag,
Patna-20, (Bihar).
21. Ravindra Narayan Singh, aged about-62 years, son of Sri
Bashistha Narayan Singh, resident of Palika Bazar, Near
New Patna Transport, Deoghar, P.0. & P.S. & District
Deoghar, PIN-814112.
...Petitioners/Performa Respondents.
with
L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023
1. Ali Hussain years, Ansari, aged about-68 Son of Late Md.
Ashu Ansari Resident of Flat No. 1/C, Alrayan Enclave,
Bariyatu, P.O. and P.S. Bariyatu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Jugal Prasad, aged about-68 years, son of Late Ganauri
-5-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Choudhary, Resident of C/o N. Toppo, Sundar Bihar, Tiril
Bhathi Road, Kokar, P.O. Kokar, P.S.Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Surendra Kumar Singh (II), aged about-68 years, son of
Late Suraj Bali Singh, Resident of C/o S.K. Singh, Vill.-Koto,
P.O.-Koto, P.S. Patratu, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand
4. Goverdhan Mahto, aged about-71 years, son of Late
Mahabir Mahato, Resident of Kathitand, Block Road, Ratu,
P.O. and P.S. Ratu, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. Sakeel Ahmad, aged about-68 years, Son of Md.
Habibullah, Resident of Road No. 2, House No. 36, Risaldar
Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. B.K. Banka, aged about-70 years, son of Late Sagar Mal
Banka, Resident of Flat No. 304, Palash Modi Compound,
Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Surendra Prasad Singh, aged about-68 years, son of Late
Kedar Nath Singh, Resident of Flat No. 407, Sri Paras
Apartment, Harmu Road, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Argora, Dist.
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Satya Narayan Prasad, aged about-68 years, son of Sri
Madan Ram, Resident of Flat No. 502, Aranyad Apartment,
Kadru, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Ishwar Prasad, aged about-70 years, son of Sri Baso
Prasad, Resident of Flat No. B/101, Satya Enclave, Mahua
Toli, Gas Godown Road, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
10. Ramashish Prasad, aged about-70 years, son of Khushi
Lal Yadav, Resident of Flat No. B/102, Satya Enclave,
Mahua Toli, Gas Godown Road, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
11. Madhusudan Singh, aged about-70 years, son of Late
-6-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Shivdhatri Singh, Resident of Flat No. A/108, Satya Enclave,
Mahua Toli, Gas Godown Road, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
12. Ajay Kumar Mitra, aged about-73 years, son of Late
Kalipada Mitra, resident of Plot No. 190, Old A.G. Colony,
Near Reliance Fresh, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
13. Dilip Kumar Chourasia, aged about-70 years, son of late
Krishna Prasad Chourasia, Resident of Samlong Road, Near
Old Biscuit Factory, P.O. and P.S. Namkom, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
14. Om Prakash, aged about-67 years, son of Late
Ramdarsan Verma, resident of 3rd Lane, Gandhi Nagar
(West), Matwari P.O. P.S. and Jharkhand. District-
Hazaribagh,
15. Anil Kumar, aged about-69 years, son of Late Chhedi
Thakur, Resident of D/15, Vatika Green City, Dimna Road,
Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, District-Singhbhum East,
Jharkhand.
16. Rahim Ansari, aged about-73 years, son of Late Hussain
Main, Resident of 101 Isva Apartment, P.O. and P.S. Kanke,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
17. Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, aged about-69 years, son of
Late Balgovind Prasad Singh, resident of House no. 21/60,
Bahadurpur, Housing Colony, Kankarbagh, P.O. and P.S.
Kankarbagh, District-Patna, Bihar.
Versus
Petitioners/Appellants
1.Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its
Chairman-cumManaging Director.
-7-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
2. Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited through its
Managing Director.
3. Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Limited through its
Managing Director.
4. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its
Managing Director.
5. The General Manager (Personnel and General
Administration), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.
6. The Director Finance, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited.
7. The Director Finance, Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam
Limited.
8. The Director Finance, Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam
Limited.
9. The Director Finance, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Vikas
Nigam Limited.
All Residents of Engineering Building H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..Respondents / Respondents.
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Advocate
[For JUVNL in LPA 253/23]
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate
--------
-8-
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
C.A.V. on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 15/01/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are
identical, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for
the parties, both the matters have been tagged together.
Accordingly, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Prayer in L.P.A. No. 253 of 2023:
2. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment
dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in
W.P.(S) No. 5464 of 2015 by which the writ petition filed
by the writ petitioners has been dismissed on the ground
that fate of similar impugned orders/notifications have
already been decided vide order dated 08.9.2022 by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3306 of
2015 by dismissing the writ petition.
Prayer in L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023:
3. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment
dated 08.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.
(S) No. 3306 of 2015 by which the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioners has been dismissed finding no
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
illegality in the order passed by the respondents-
authorities.
Factual Aspect:
4. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings
available on record, reads as under:
5. Before referring to the factual aspect of the
matter, it requires to mention herein that initially writ
petition being W.P. (S) No.3306 of 2015 was filed on
23.07.2015 seeking a direction upon the respondents to
correctly fix the pay scale of the petitioners after giving
due benefit of MACP with the date of entitlement of each
petitioner and also to pay the arrears to each petitioner
w.e.f. the date of their entitlement along with interest.
6. At the stage of the writ proceedings, the
petitioners had relied upon the various decisions made
by the erstwhile electricity board i.e. Bihar State
Electricity Board succeeded by Jharkhand State
Electricity Board including the office order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Board,
which, as per the petitioners, was clarifying earlier
decisions contained in resolution No. 2492 dated
12.05.2010 and also office order No. 546 dated
13.04.2011 and office order No. 1724 dated 03.11.2011.
- 10 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
7. During the pendency of this writ petition, the
respondents passed an order dated 18.11.2016 whereby
the office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was withdrawn
with retrospective effect and further a direction has been
issued to grant 1st, 2nd and 3rd M.A.C.P in terms of
resolution No. 2492 dated 12.05.2010 and office order
No. 1724 dated 03.11.2011.
8. The impugned order dated 18.11.2016 was
followed by two consequential orders vide Notification No.
338 dated 26.07.2017 for G.T.O. and Notification No.
1313 dated 18.07.2017.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitioners-appellants filed
interlocutory application seeking amendment of the writ
petition and challenged the annulment of the Office
Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 with retrospective date
vide the Office Order No. 2251 dated 18.11.2016 whereby
benefits given to the petitioners vide Office Order No. 292
dated 24.02.2012 were withdrawn with retrospective
date. The writ petitioners-appellants also challenged
those two notifications being Notification No. 338 dated
26.07.2017 for G.T.O. and notification No. 1313 dated
18.07.2017 for General Cadres Graduate Engineers
Electrical. The said interlocutory application was allowed.
- 11 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Thereafter, the petitioners filed the amended writ
petition.
10. It is pertinent to mention herein that by virtue of
the order dated 22.06.2022, the writ court directed the
respondents to produce the records of the decision-
making process with regard to impugned order dated
18.11.2016 and also with regard to the consequential
orders and the matter was adjourned.
11. Subsequently, the original records were produced
before the concerned court. In order to give opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners, the respondents placed a
copy of the original records by filing a supplementary
counter affidavit to which a rejoinder was also filed.
12. Now coming to the factual aspect, the writ
petitioners-appellants who were initially appointed by the
Bihar state Electricity Board, Patna, are the retired
Graduate Engineers of erstwhile Jharkhand State
Electricity Board, which has since been divided into four
nigams in the year 2013-2014 namely, (i).Jharkhand
Urja Vikash Nigam Limited; (ii).Jharkhand Urja
Sancharan Nigam Ltd.; (iii).Jharkhand Urja Vitaran
Nigam Ltd.; and (iv).Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam
Limited.
- 12 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
13. It is stated that vide resolution no. 225 dated
09.12.1998, the then Bihar State Electricity Board
[hereinafter referred to as „BSEB‟] constituted a Pay
Revision Committee for revision of scale of pay of the
employees of Board. The said Committee was re-
constituted vide Resolution No. 43 dated 28.01.2000 of
the Board. The Pay Revision Committee submitted the
report on 02.10.2000, which was considered by the
BSEB in its meeting held on 11.10.2000.
14. Vide Resolution No. 7674 dated 11.10.2000 the
Board in view of provisions of Section 79(C) of the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 decided to revise the
existing pay-scales of the employees of the Board,
wherein, as per the averments made in the writ petition,
following decision was taken:
(i) The Revision of pay scale was in two categories; one
relating to workmen and another relating to Officers of the
Board;
(ii) It was further decided that the revision would be
notionally with effect from 01.01.1996, but actual
payment would be with effect from 01.04.1997.
(iii) It was further decided by Board that "Assured
Career Progression Scheme" would replace the existing
system of Selection Grade and Time Bound Scale
Promotion. The Board decided that adoption of Assured
Career Progression Scheme of the Govt. of India ensures a
reasonable career progression.
- 13 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
The above decisions of the B.S.E.B were notified vide
Notification No.- 268 dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure-2).
At the end of above notification, it was further stated
as follows: -
"This notification shall be treated as a Regulation
framed by the Board in exercise of power conferred under
Section-79( c) of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 (Act No.- LIV
of 1948) and will form part of the relevant cadre
regulations whenever applicable."
15. It requires to refer herein, the Government of
India, extended the benefits of 6th Pay Revision to its
employees with effect from 01.01.2006. The State of
Jharkhand also decided to give benefits to its employees
in terms thereof. Therefore, vide Resolution dated
28.02.2008 the State of Jharkhand decided to give
benefits of 6th Pay Revision to its employees with effect
from 01.01.2006. The resolution of the State Government
in paragraph 14 states as follows :-
"14 Assured Career Progression Scheme:
The State Government have agreed to implement the
modified Assured Career Progression Scheme on the
pattern applicable to Central Government employees.
In the modified ACP Scheme, there will be three
financial up-gradation i.e. after 10, 20 and 30
years........".
16. The Jharkhand State Electricity Board, JSEB,
relying on the decision of the State Government, made
the benefits of 6th Pay Revision applicable to its employee
with effect from 01.01.2006. The JSEB also took decision
- 14 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
to give benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression
(M.A.C.P.) to its employees on completion of 10, 20 and
30 years of service. The above resolution of the Board
was issued vide Resolution No.-2492 dated 12.05.2010
along with M.A.C.P. Scheme.
17. The engineers, working in JSEB were not satisfied
with decision of Modified Assured Career Progression
(M.A.C.P) upon completion of 10, 20 and 30 years like
the State Government Employees and were demanding
better prospect of M.A.C.P. Considering the claim and
demand of the Engineers working under JSEB, the Board
by its Resolution dated 13.04.2011 decided as follows:-
"In partial modification of Board's Resolution no. 2492
dated 12.05.2010, Board vide its resolution no. 744
has decided as follows:-
For Electrical Engineers of the Board (General) Cadre
and G.T.O. Cadre, benefit of M.A.C.P. will be after 8-
16-24 years of continuous service. However, for other
employees of the Board the benefit of M.A.C.P. will be
available respectively after 10-20-30 years of
continuous service.
Other conditions of the aforesaid resolution will
remain the same."
18. The office order No. 546/EB dated 13.04.2011
was followed by another office order no. 1724 dated
03.11.2011 which reads as follows: -
- 15 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
"The Board vide Resolution No.818 has decided to
implement MACP Scheme from 01.09.2008 with
following provisions:
(i) Payment of Arrears will be made in two
instalments first in the month of April 2012
and second in the month of September
2012 and
(ii) Payment of arrears of MACP will be subject
to the condition that monthly revenue
collection exceeds Rs.200 crores mark.
2. Board's Resolution No.2492 dated 12.05.2010
and Board's Office Order No.546 dated
13.04.2011 are modified to the above extent and
other conditions of the aforesaid
Resolution/Office Order will remain same."
19. Thereafter, another Office Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 was issued amending the earlier decisions
contained in Resolution No.-2492 dated 12.05.2010,
Office Order No.-546 dated 13.04.2011 and Office Order
No.- 1724 dated 03.11.2011.
20. It is stated that vide Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 mainly two changes have been made, firstly,
clause no. 15 and 17 has been modified by replacing the
term "A.C.P." with the term "Promotion" and secondly,
clause 16 (ga) has been modified by which the electrical
engineers of the Board (General Cadre and GTO) have
been carved out as a different class with regard to grant
of benefits of MACP after 8-16-24 years of continuous
service and for other employees, the benefits of M.A.C.P.
- 16 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
have been made available after 10-20-30 years of
continuous service.
21. In the backdrop of aforesaid fact, the writ
petitions were filed by the writ petitioners. At the time of
filing the writ petition, the petitioners had prayed for a
mandamus upon the respondents to correctly fix their
pay giving due benefits of M.A.C.P. with consequential
reliefs which, inter alia, was based on office order No. 292
contained in memo No. 303 dated 24.02.2012. It is
important to note that the office order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 was shown to have been issued by the order
of the Board of JSEB.
22. The grievance of the writ petitioners-appellants at
the time of filing the writ petition was that the decisions
of the JSEB including the aforesaid decision contained in
Office Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 were not being
implemented and consequently the writ petitions were
filed seeking a mandamus upon the respondents.
23. However, during pendency of the writ petition,
office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was itself annulled
with retrospective effect by virtue of impugned office
order No. 2251 dated 18.11.2016 which was followed by
subsequent orders dated 18.07.2017 and 26.07.2017.
- 17 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
24. The annulment of order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012
with retrospective date vide order No. 2251 dated
18.11.2016 and subsequent orders dated 18.07.2017
and 26.07.2017 have been challenged by way of filing
writ petitions.
25. Before the writ Court, the respondent-JUVNL
appeared and filed counter affidavit, stating inter alia,
that the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 by which
Office Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 has been
withdrawn with retrospective date is a result of the report
of the committee constituted vide order No. 1038 dated
16.06.2016 which consisted of as many as six members.
As per the said report of the committee, it was found
after verification of records that the office order No. 292
dated 24.02.2012 was issued communicating certain
modifications of the Board‟s Resolution No. 2492 dated
12.05.2010 in which ACP has been replaced by the terms
promotion and consequently Clause-16(ga), 15 and 17
were modified. It was also observed in the report that
though it was mentioned in the office order No. 292
dated 24.02.2012 that the same was being issued under
the orders of Jharkhand State Electricity Board but the
fact is that it had never been placed before the Board of
JSEB (Jharkhand State Electricity Board). Meaning
- 18 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
thereby, office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was not
approved by the Board of JSEB.
26. It has been averred that since the decision
contained in office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was
never approved by the Board of JSEB, the same is not a
decision of Board of JSEB and the same could not have
modified any earlier decision of the Board of JSEB.
27. It is submitted that the said decision as contained
in office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 is just an
executive order which could not have modified by any
decision of the Board of JSEB. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 18.11.2016, which withdraws the office order
No. 292 dated 24.02.2012, has rightly been passed.
28. Further ground has been taken that certain audit
objection was raised with regard to the office order No.
292 dated 24.02.2012 and when the matter was
examined, it revealed that the office order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 was merely an executive order and the same
was never placed and approved by the Board of JSEB
and consequently the impugned order dated 18.11.2016
was passed, inter alia, nullifying and withdrawing the
office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 with retrospective
effect.
- 19 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
29. The learned writ court, considering the
submissions advanced by the parties dismissed the writ
petitions, recording the finding that since Order No. 292
dated 24.02.2012 was never approved by the Board of
JSEB, as such vide impugned order dated 18.11.2016
the same was withdrawn, which requires no interference.
30. The order passed by the learned writ Court has
been challenged by the writ petitioners in these intra-
court appeals.
Submission on behalf of appellants-writ petitioners:
31. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners-appellants has submitted that it is a matter
related to the Graduate Engineers of 1981 and 1984 of
the electricity Board.
32. Placing the written note of argument, learned
senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that
Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide its resolution No.
2492 dated 12/05/2010 decided to constitute a
screening committee. Thereafter the Board also by the
said Resolution authorized the Chairman/Secretary of
the Board to approve and to act thereupon. Accordingly,
as per Resolution of Board, the Chairman JSEB
constituted a screening committee vide Office Order No.
1985 dated 19-10-2012 and thereafter on the basis of
- 20 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Screening Committee's report allowed the same vide
notification no. 5529 dated 25-10-2012 (for G.T.O cadre)
and notification no. 2153 dated 17-11-2012 (for general
Cadre graduate engineer). But this aspect of the matter
has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
33. It has been submitted that the corrigendum of
office order no. 292 dated 24-02-2012 is a statement of
truth or interpretation that 2nd time scale pay of
Executive Engineer selection grade is neither a scale of
promotional post nor like ACP (implemented in state
government). It has been stated that report was
submitted by the screening committee and the
corrigendum dated 24.02.2012 is just explanation of
earlier orders or decision of the chairman, which was not
required the approval of Board of JSEB/JUVNL.
34. It is submitted that the Successor company is a
creator of Government and not by the legislature. Hence,
it cannot override the decision of a statutory body i.e.
JSEB. A non-Statutory Company cannot sit in appeal
against decision of a statutory body.
35. Referring to Section 131 (2) and (4) of Electricity
Act 2003 submission has been made that it makes it
clear that: - Successor Companies only can step into the
shoes of the Statutory body. They cannot
- 21 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
reduce/withdraw (Including MACP, G.P Rs 9000) a
vested rights of employees and remain enforceable even
after restructuring of Board. JSEB had a statutory power
conferred by the legislature its resolutions have quasi
legal status.
36. It has been submitted that approval of
corrigendum or grade pay by Statutory head is legally
binding unless:
i) Later overruled by a higher Statutory Authority.
ii) Withdrawn by the JSEB itself before dissolutions.
37. But, in the case at hand, neither of this
happened, so, the Successor Company cannot change
legal status of the decision of JSEB Board.
38. It has further been submitted that in these cases
there are two separate independent issues i.e., (i) The
grade pay dispute; and (ii) Wrongful fixation. It is
submitted that even if the appellants are not granted
Grade pay of Rs 9000 then also the respondents cannot
be allowed to continue with an incorrect fixation in
violation FR 22 (1) (a) (1), Serial 7 resolution 2492 dated
12-05-2010 and the 6th Pay revision pay mapping rules.
39. It is further submitted that Petitioner original
basic (Date of determination of Grade Pay of 3rd MACP
after completion of 24 Yrs of Regular services) were at Rs
- 22 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
18150 on 01.08.2008 (1981 batch) and Rs 16575 (1984
batch) on 01.01.2008 respectively, but both were reduced
and mapped to Rs 14,700 which is factually and legally
incorrect.
40. Learned senior counsel has further submitted
that natural justice and Equality (Article-14) has been
violated by bringing arbitrarily to different senior batches
(1981 and 1984) to the same starting point (Rs 14700)
which result in - loss of seniority; loss of increments and
violation of equal treatment.
41. But the learned Single Judge did not consider
these aspects of the matter and the issue of proper
fixation has not been correctly appreciated by the Single
Judge, which requires interference by this Court.
42. It has been submitted that in Fixation of pay
FR22 (1) (a) (1) has to be followed: -
i) Pay must be fixed considering old basic on
01.01.2008 for 1984 Batch and 01.08.2008 for 1981
Batch.
ii) 3% Addition on fixation benefit in old pay on
01.01.2008 / 01.08.2008 for respective batches.
iii) The deduced old basic to (ii) be matched in the cell
of old pay matrix attached with Grade pay table.
- 23 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
iv)After staging in the cell of old pay matrix
corresponding new pay against it would be the required
new pay basic.
43. It has further been submitted that the
Board/department ought not to use the G.P table to
override the pay mapping rules; and parity of Tenure
based (3rd MACP Period Parity) in place of point of time
of basic pay should have been considered but these
aspects of the matter has not been considered by learned
Single Judge.
44. It has been submitted that when the hierarchy
changes MACP consequences must logically change too.
Otherwise, it will violate Article 14 of Constitution of
India as also Article 16 i.e., Equality of opportunity in
public Employment.
45. On the basis of above submission, it has been
contended that the approved grade pay of Rs. 9000 as
benefit of 3rd MACP after completion of 24 years of
service to 1981 batch, 1984 batches and rest batches on
completion of their 24 years service, as per conferred
right by section 5 of resolution 2492 dated 12.05.2010 is
still valid and legally alive even if corrigendum of 292
dated 24.02.2012 is annulled.
- 24 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
46. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners-
appellants on the aforesaid ground has submitted that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires
interference.
Submission behalf of respondents-:
47. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the strength of written note of argument
filed on behalf of respondent-Board, has taken the
following grounds in defending the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
48. It has been submitted that the MACP Scheme, as
notified by the Government of India and adopted with
modifications by the autonomous JSEB, provides for
financial up-gradation to the immediate next higher
grade pay in the hierarchy on completion of specified
years of service (8, 16, and 24 years for engineers).
49. The approved hierarchy of Grade Pays for the
appellants' cadre under the 6th Pay Revision is: Rs. 5600
Rs. 6600 Rs. 7750→ Rs. 8700 → Rs. 9000. Accordingly,
the appellants received time-bound promotions/time-
scale benefits during their service, which placed them in
scales corresponding to Grade Pays of Rs. 6600 and Rs.
7750.
- 25 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
50. For the purpose of MACP, the appellants' starting
point remains their entry grade pay (Rs. 5600). Their
legitimate MACP path is:
1st MACP (after 8 years): Grade Pay Rs. 6600
- 2nd MACP (after 16 years): Grade Pay Rs. 7750
(This is the immediate next higher grade pay after
Rs. 6600)
- 3rd MACP (after 24 years): Grade Pay Rs. 8700
(This is the immediate next higher grade pay after
Rs. 7750)
51. Submission has been made that the Grade Pay of
Rs. 9000 is attached to the promotional post of Chief
Engineer. It is not the immediate next grade pay in the
MACP hierarchy for the appellants' cadre. Granting Rs.
9000 under the 3rd MACP would amount to an
impermissible double promotion, skipping the
intermediary Grade Pay of Rs. 8700 entirely.
52. Further submission has been made that the grant
of Rs. 8700 as 2nd MACP and Rs. 9000 as 3rd MACP was
based on a misinterpretation (Office Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012), which was rightly pointed out by the
statutory audit (Accountant General). Consequently, the
Respondent-Board, in exercise of its administrative
authority and to comply with its own rules, correctly
- 26 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
withdrew the erroneous order retrospectively and
reinstated the correct MACP hierarchy.
53. The Learned Single Judge meticulously analyzed
these aspects, along with the Board's authority, the
nature of the audit objection, and the true scope of the
MACP Scheme, as such dismissed the petition, which
requires no interference by this Court.
54. It has been submitted that the fundamental
Principle of MACP is "Immediate Next Higher Grade Pay".
Para 2 of the Government of India's MACP unequivocally
states that "The MACPS envisages merely placement in
the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy..."
This principle was faithfully incorporated into JSEB's
MACP Scheme under Resolution No. 2492 dated
12.05.2010. The phrase "immediate next higher grade
pay" is clear and unambiguous. It does not mean the
"next promotional post's grade pay" but the next
consecutive grade pay in the standardized pay structure.
55. It has further been submitted that the Office
Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 is a Clarification, not a
Benefit. This order was issued to clarify that "time bound
scale was neither equivalent to ACP nor promotional scale,
hence, it would not be counted as MACP like ACP or
- 27 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
promotion." It did not create a new entitlement but
explained an existing rule.
56. The time-bound scale of Rs. 12300-375-15675-
450-18825 (corresponding to Grade Pay Rs. 7750) was
an automatic benefit based on tenure, without a formal
promotion or change in designation.
57. It has been submitted that the MACP Scheme,
based on the Central scheme, is designed for employees
stagnating without promotion. Since the appellants
received this time-scale benefit, they were not
"stagnating" in the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600 for the purpose
of the MACP's design. However, the Scheme's rules
explicitly state that such non-promotional financial
benefits do not alter the MACP hierarchy.
58. Further, when the statutory audit (Accountant
General) pointed out that treating the time scale as a
non-event for MACP and thereby skipping Grade Pay Rs.
7750 was a substantive error, the Board re-evaluated it.
59. It has been submitted that the withdrawal of
Office Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012, vide Memo No.
2251 dated 18.11.2016 was not mala fide but a
necessary correction of a jurisdictional error to align pay
fixation with the sanctioned Scheme.
- 28 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
60. The Learned Single Judge, taking into the
aforesaid fact has correctly held that the audit objection
was substantively correct and that the Board's
subsequent correction based on it was lawful.
61. It has been submitted that the learned Single
Judge finding that Office Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 was not properly approved by the Board is a
finding of fact based on record, has passed the impugned
order. It has been submitted that even if signed by the
Secretary, if it substantially altered the Board's
sanctioned Resolution No. 2492 dated 12.05.2010
without Board approval, it was without jurisdiction. Its
subsequent withdrawal was thus valid.
62. It has further been submitted that the MACP
Scheme is distinct from the old ACP Scheme. The ACP
Scheme considered the hierarchy of promotional posts,
while MACP scheme considers the hierarchy of grade
pays. This crucial difference has been recognized by
Courts of law.
63. Learned counsel for the respondents on the
aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this
Court.
Analysis
- 29 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
64. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
parties and gone through the rival submissions advanced
on behalf of parties as also the pleading available in the
memo of appeal.
65. The writ petitioners-appellants were initially
appointed by the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna,
and are the retired Graduate Engineers of erstwhile
Jharkhand State Electricity Board, which has since been
divided into four nigams, namely, (i). Jharkhand Urja
Vikash Nigam Limited; (ii). Jharkhand Urja Sancharan
Nigam Ltd.; (iii). Jharkhand Urja Vitaran Nigam Ltd.; (iv).
Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited. The appellants
were appointed as Assistant Electrical
Engineers/Assistant Executive Engineers in the General
Cadre and GTO Case in the year 1984.
66. The Government of India, provided benefits of 6th
Pay Revision to its employees with effect from
01.01.2006. The State of Jharkhand also decided to give
benefits to its employees in above line. Therefore, by
Resolution dated 28.02.2008 the State of Jharkhand
decided to give benefits of 6th Pay Revision to its
employees with effect from 01.01.2006. By above
resolution of the State Government in paragraph 14 it is
- 30 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
stated that ".. In the modified ACP Scheme, there will be three
financial up-gradation i.e. after 10, 20 and 30 years........".
67. The JSEB, upon relying on the decision of the
State Government, made the benefits of 6th Pay Revision
applicable to its employee and also took decision to give
benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.)
to its employees on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of
service.
68. The engineers, working in JSEB, being not
satisfied with decision of Modified Assured Career
Progression (M.A.C.P) upon completion of 10, 20 and 30
years like the State Government Employees, demanding
better prospect of M.A.C.P. considering claim and
demand of the Engineers working under JSEB, the
Board by its Resolution dated 13.04.2011 decided that
"In partial modification of Board's Resolution no. 2492
dated 12.05.2010, Board vide its resolution no. 744 has
decided as follows:- For Electrical Engineers of the Board
(General) Cadre and G.T.O. Cadre, benefit of M.A.C.P. will
be after 8-16-24 years of continuous service. However, for
other employees of the Board the benefit of M.A.C.P. will
be available respectively after 10-20-30 years of
continuous service....."
- 31 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
69. The office order No. 546/EB dated 13.04.2011
was followed by another office order no. 1724 dated
03.11.2011 whereby the MACP Scheme was modified to
the extent that it to be implemented from 01.09.2008, as
quoted and referred above.
70. Thereafter, another Office Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 was issued amending the earlier decisions
contained in Resolution No.-2492 dated 12.05.2010
whereby mainly two changes have been made, firstly,
clause no. 15 and 17 has been modified by replacing the
term "A.C.P." with the term "Promotion" and secondly,
clause 16 (ga) has been modified by which the electrical
engineers of the Board (General Cadre and GTO) have
been carved out as a different class with regard to grant
of benefits of MACP after 8-16-24 years of continuous
service and for other employees, the benefits of M.A.C.P.
have been made available after 10-20-30 years of
continuous service.
71. It appears that thereafter certain audit objection
was raised with regard to the office order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 and when the matter was examined, it
revealed that the office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012
was merely an executive order and the same was never
approved properly.
- 32 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
72. Accordingly, the respondents passed order dated
18.11.2016 whereby the aforesaid office order No. 292 as
contained in memo No. 24.02.2012 has been withdrawn
with retrospective effect and further a direction has been
issued to grant M.A.C.P in terms of resolution No. 2492
dated 12.05.2010 and office order No. 1724 dated
03.11.2011.
73. This Court, before going to the legality and
propriety of the impugned order needs to refer herein the
object and purport of „Modified Assured Career
Progression‟ [MACP]. The Scheme of MACP was floated by
the Central Government employees designed to provide
financial relief against stagnation in their careers due to
lack of promotional avenues. Its primary object is to
„relieve stagnation'. It offers for financial advancement for
employees who remain in the same post and grade for
long periods without receiving a regular promotion. It
specifically provides that the financial up-gradation is
granted to the immediate next higher level in Pay Matrix.
74. It is evident from the pleadings available on
record that the MACP Scheme, as notified by the
Government of India, with some modifications, was
adopted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board
[JSEB], and provided financial up-gradation on
- 33 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
completion of specified years of service (8, 16, and 24
years for engineers).
75. Accordingly, the appellants had received time-
bound promotions/time-scale benefits during their
service. Taking the entry grade pay of Rs. 5600, the
appellants are said to have entitled for 3rd MACP, after 24
years, in the Grade Pay Rs. 8700 and not Rs. 9000/- as
claimed by the appellants, which is the immediate next
higher grade pay after Rs. 7750/-.
76. The stand has been taken by the respondents-
Board that the Grade Pay of Rs. 9000 is attached to the
promotional post of Chief Engineer, and since it is not
the immediate next grade pay in the MACP hierarchy for
the appellants' cadre, therefore, granting Rs. 9000 under
the 3rd MACP would amount to an impermissible double
promotion, skipping the intermediary Grade Pay of Rs.
8700 entirely.
77. Herein, the core issue involved is about the
fixation of their pay under the Modified Assured Career
Progression (MACP) Scheme as the appellants claim that
they are entitlement to the Grade Pay of Rs. 9000/- in
Pay Band IV (Rs. 37,400-67,000) upon completion of 24
years of service (3rd MACP), whereas, the respondent by
virtue of impugned notification dated 18.11.2016 claims
- 34 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
that Grade Pay of Rs. 8700/- is made applicable for the
appellant for 3rd MACP.
78. Therefore, the question arises that whether the
Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has
to be extended to the next promotional post or such
employees would be entitled to immediate next higher
grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised
pay bands.
79. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has time and again observed that Modified Assured
Career Progression (MACP) Scheme has nothing to do
with the next promotional post and what the employee
would be entitled is the immediate next higher grade pay
in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands.
Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union
of India and others Vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 S
CC 421, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:
"29. As pointed out earlier, both ACP and MACP
Schemes are in the nature of incentive schemes
devised with the object of ensuring that the
employees who are unable to avail of adequate
promotional opportunities, get some relief from
stagnation in the form of financial benefits. Under
the MACP Scheme, financial upgradations are
granted at three regular intervals on completion
- 35 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
of 10-20-30 years of service without promotion.
Hence, it is also intended to ensure that the
employees are adequately incentivised to work
efficiently despite not getting promotion for want of
promotional avenue. The change in policy brought
about by supersession of the ACP Scheme with the
MACP Scheme is after well-deliberated and well-
documented recommendations of the Sixth Central
Pay Commission. Considering the various issues in
the implementation of the ACP Scheme, the Pay
Commission expressed its views "the only other way
is to bring systematic changes in the existing Scheme
of ACP so that all the employees irrespective of the
existing hierarchy structure in their
organisations/cadres, get some benefit under it". The
Commission therefore, recommended that the existing
scheme of ACP be continued with the modifications
indicated thereon in the report that the financial
upgradation has to be in the next immediate grade
pay. One of the reasons for the expert body
recommending the MACP Scheme was that there were
inter-departmental disparities where several
departments had varying promotional hierarchies. As
a result, the working of ACP Scheme under which an
employee who stagnated for 12 years, was entitled to
pay in the pay scale of the next promotional post, led
to inter-departmental anomalies. The Pay Commission
therefore, recommended MACP Scheme with a view to
putting an end to the problem ensuing from inter-
departmental disparities.
30. The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents urged the
Court to adopt a "purposive interpretation" that the
words "immediate next higher grade pay" to be
interpreted as "Grade pay of the next promotional
post" in the hierarchy. MACP Scheme envisages
merely placement in the immediate next higher grade
pay. By perusal of the MACP Scheme extracted
- 36 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
earlier, it is seen that the words used in the Scheme
are "placement in the immediate next higher grade
pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay
bands". The term "grade pay in the next promotional
post" is conspicuously absent in the entire body of the
MACP Scheme. The argument of the respondents that
the benefit of MACP Scheme is referable to the
promotional post, is dehors the MACP Scheme and
cannot be accepted. Though ACP and MACP Schemes
are intended to provide relief against stagnation, both
the schemes have different features. Pay scales under
the Sixth Pay Commission and the MACP Scheme are
stated to be more beneficial since it extends to the
employees with time intervals with higher pay bands
and various facilities which were not available under
the ACP Scheme including the three financial
upgradations in shorter time span. In any event,
MACP Scheme has not been challenged by the
respondents. As rightly contended by the learned
ASG, the respondents cannot be permitted to cherry-
pick beneficial features from the erstwhile ACP
Scheme and also take advantage of the beneficial
features in the MACP Scheme.
80. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has reiterated its view in
the case of Director, Directorate of Enforcement and
Anr. v. K. Sudheesh Kumar & Ors, (2022) 3 SCC 649
and has observed, which reads as under:
8. At the outset it is required to be noted that the
issue involved in the present appeal is as such
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in M.V.
Mohanan Nair [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair,
(2020) 5 SCC 421 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] . By
detailed judgment and order this Court has
interpreted the very MACP Scheme and it is observed
and held that under the MACP Scheme employees are
- 37 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
entitled to the immediate next higher grade pay as
given in Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule of the
CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
9. It is specifically observed and held by this
Court in the aforesaid decision in M.V. Mohanan
Nair [Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair,
(2020) 5 SCC 421 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] that
MACP has nothing to do with the next
promotional post and what the employee would
be entitled to would be the immediate next
higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the
recommended revised pay bands and grade pay
as given in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As
per Clause 8.1 of the MACP Scheme "consequently
upon the implementation of Sixth CPC's
recommendations, grade pay of PB-2 and PB-3 would
be Rs 5400. It specifically provides that the grade pay
of Rs 5400 in PB-2 and Rs 5400 in PB-3 shall be
treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of
grant of upgradations under the MACP Scheme".
Therefore, Respondents 1 & 2 as PB-2 shall be
entitled to the next grade pay of Rs 5400 as per
Clause 8.1 and as per Section 1, Part A of the First
Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The
High Court has allowed the grade pay of Rs 6600 by
considering the next promotion post of Assistant
Director i.e. Deputy Director which carries a grade
pay of Rs 6600. However, the aforesaid interpretation
would be contrary to the MACP Scheme.
81. Therefore, impugned notification 18.11.2016
whereby the aforesaid office order No. 292 as contained
in memo No. 24.02.2012 has been withdrawn with
retrospective effect and further a direction has been
issued to grant 1st 2nd and 3rd M.A.C.P in terms of
resolution No. 2492 dated 12.05.2010 and office order
- 38 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
No. 1724 dated 03.11.2011, cannot be said to suffer from
error.
82. It further appears that the respondents filed
supplementary affidavit pursuant to orders passed by the
writ court, wherefrom it is apparent that since the year
2014 itself, the team of Accountant General (Audit) has
been raising two objections.
83. The first objection was with regard to grant of
benefits of MACP to the electrical engineers of the Board
(General Cadre and GTO) after 8-16-24 years of
continuous service and for other employees the benefits
have been made available after 10-20-30 years of
continuous service.
84. The second objection was that the up-gradation of
pay under MACP should be to the next higher grade pay.
It was noticed that up-gradation of pay to the next
promotional grade was done in the next grade.
85. The objection of the audit was that these two
modifications were against the very scheme of MACP of
the central government.
86. For the objection of the audit team a committee
was constituted by the respondents vide office order
dated 16.06.2016 and an enquiry report dated
29.08.2016 was prepared with two recommendations
- 39 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
expressed in terms of the view of the committee, which is
quoted as under: -
With regard to issue no. 1.
"Though the committee is of the view that issues should
be taken up/resolved considering the rules and spirit of
MACP scheme duly notified by GoI/GoJ, but, since the
time bound for Electrical Engineer/General Cadre and
GTO) from 10-20-30 to 08-16-24 had been modified by
the Board (JSEB) vide its resolution no. 744, though the
same has been highly objected by the AG audit.
Therefore, it will be proper to place the whole matter
before BoD of JUVNL to take appropriate decision."
With regard to issue no.-2
The discussion with regard to issue no.2, interalia, were
as follows:-
"......Later on an office order no. 292 dt. 24.02.2012 has
been issued communicating certain modifications of the
Boards resolution no. 2492 dt.12.05.2010 in which
"A.C.P." has been replaced with the terms "Promotion".
Accordingly, clause no. 16(x) 15 and 17 has been
modified. Though it is mentioned in the aforesaid
office order that .................., but fact is that, it
had never been placed before the Board, meaning
there by it is not approved by the Board of
erstwhile JSEB......"
(emphasis supplied)
View of the committee with regards to issue no.2
"The committee is of the view that issues should be taken
up/resolved considering the rules and spirit of MACP
scheme duly notified by GoI/GoJ, and since the office
order no. 292 dt. 24.02.12 was not approved by
Board (erstwhile JSEB), therefore it is recommended to
- 40 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
withdraw the office order no. 292 dt. 24.02.16 and
necessary steps may be taken accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
87. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the
Board of Directors of the Respondents wherein, a
decision was taken to withdraw Memo No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 with retrospective effect vide record of
proceedings dated 16.11.2016 which was followed by
issuance of impugned order dated 18.11.2016 whereby
vide para no.1 the Memo No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was
withdrawn with retrospective effect.
88. On account of retrospective withdrawal of Memo
No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 vide impugned order dated
18.11.2016, the un-amended clause 15, 16(ga) and 17 of
Board‟s resolution no. 2492 date 12.05.2010 were
restored.
89. Admittedly, order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was
merely an executive order and the same was never placed
and approved by the Board of JSEB.
90. It is settled principle of law that executive order
or resolution cannot override statutory law, which is a
fundamental principle in administrative law, meaning
thereby the executive actions must align with,
supplement, or fill gaps in laws but never contradict or
subvert them; courts consistently quash executive
- 41 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
instructions that run counter to existing statutory rules
or regulations, reinforcing that executive orders lack the
force of law to override enacted legislation.
91. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
passed by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of
R. Ranjith Singh and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1009, wherein it has
been held as under:
20. This Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh v. G.S. Dall and Flour Mills, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 150 has held that executive instructions can
supplement a Statute or cover areas which the
Statute does not extend. They cannot run contrary to
the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect.
In the present case, the G.O. dated 13.07.1995, G.O.
dated 24.10.1996 and G.O. dated 10.06.2009 are
executive instructions and based upon the executive
instructions, the statutory provisions as contained
under the statutory rules could not have been made
applicable as has been done in the present case.
21. This Court in the case of Jaiveer Singh v. The
State of Uttarakhand, 2023 INSC 1024 has held as
under:
"34. It can thus be seen that it is a trite law that the
Government cannot amend or supersede statutory
rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules
are silent on any particular point, it can fill up the
gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions
not inconsistent with the rules already framed. It is a
settled proposition of law that an authority cannot
issue orders/office memorandum/executive
instructions in contravention of the statutory rules.
- 42 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
However, instructions can be issued only to
supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it.
This Court has again held in the aforesaid case that
the Government cannot issue executive instructions in
contravention of the statutory rules.
92. Thus, Rule is settled that administrative
instruction cannot take the shape of statutory effect on
the operation of Law and the instruction do not have any
overriding effect on the operation of the Act.
93. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. Vrs. State of U.P.,
reported in (1997) 2 SCC 161. However, the said
judgment has been given in the context of the ceiling Act,
but the principle decided therein that executive
instructions cannot have any overriding effect upon the
statute.
94. Further, by referring to Section 131 (2) and (4) of
Electricity Act 2003 the learned Senior Counsel has
contended that it makes it clear that Successor
Companies only can step into the shoes of the Statutory
body and they cannot reduce/withdraw (Including MACP,
G.P Rs 9000) a vested rights of employees and remain
enforceable even after restructuring of Board.
95. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention
this Court has gone through Section 131 of the
- 43 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Electricity Act 2003 particularly sub-Section (2) and (4)
thereof, wherein it has been stipulated that any property,
interest in property, rights and liabilities vested in the
State Government under sub-section (1) shall be re-
vested by the State Government in a Government
company or in a company or companies, in accordance
with the transfer scheme so published along with such
other property, interest in property, rights and liabilities
of the State Government as may be stipulated in such
scheme, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed
between the State Government and such company or
companies being State Transmission Utility or generating
company or transmission licensee or distribution
licensee, as the case may be.
96. For ready reference the said Section of the Act
2003 is being quoted as under:
131. Vesting of property of Board in State
Government.--(1) With effect from the date on
which a transfer scheme, prepared by the State
Government to give effect to the objects and
purposes of this Act, is published or such further
date as may be stipulated by the State Government
(hereafter in this Part referred to as the effective
date), any property, interest in property, rights and
liabilities which immediately before the effective
date belonged to the State Electricity Board
(hereinafter referred to as the Board) shall vest in
the State Government on such terms as may be
- 44 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
agreed between the State Government and the
Board.
(2) Any property, interest in property, rights
and liabilities vested in the State Government
under sub-section (1) shall be re-vested by the
State Government in a Government company or
in a company or companies, in accordance
with the transfer scheme so published along
with such other property, interest in property,
rights and liabilities of the State Government
as may be stipulated in such scheme, on such
terms and conditions as may be agreed
between the State Government and such
company or companies being State
Transmission Utility or generating company or
transmission licensee or distribution licensee,
as the case may be:
Provided that the transfer value of any assets
transferred hereunder shall be determined, as
far as may be, based on the revenue potential
of such assets at such terms and conditions as
may be agreed between the State Government
and the State Transmission Utility or
generating company or transmission licensee
or distribution licensee, as the case may be.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, where,--
(a) the transfer scheme involves the transfer of any
property or rights to any person or undertaking not
wholly owned by the State Government, the scheme
shall give effect to the transfer only for fair value to
be paid by the transferee to the State Government;
(b) a transaction of any description is effected in
pursuance of a transfer scheme, it shall be binding
on all persons including third parties and even if
- 45 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
such persons or third parties have not consented to
it.
(4) The State Government may, after consulting
the Government company or company or
companies being State Transmission Utility or
generating company or transmission licensee
or distribution licensee, referred to in sub-
section (2) (hereinafter referred to as the
transferor), require such transferor to draw up
a transfer scheme to vest in a transferee being
any other generating company or transmission
licensee or distribution licensee, the property,
interest in property, rights and liabilities
which have been vested in the transferor under
this section, and publish such scheme as
statutory transfer scheme under this Act.
(5) A transfer scheme under this section may --
(a) provide for the formation of subsidiaries, joint
venture companies or other schemes of division,
amalgamation, merger, reconstruction or
arrangements which shall promote the profitability
and viability of the resulting entity, ensure economic
efficiency, encourage competition and protect
consumer interests;
(b) define the property, interest in property, rights
and liabilities to be allocated--
(i) by specifying or describing the property, rights
and liabilities in question; or
(ii) by referring to all the property, interest in
property, rights and liabilities comprised in a
described part of the transferor's undertaking; or
(iii) partly in one way and partly in the other;
- 46 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
(c) provide that any rights or liabilities, stipulated or
described in the scheme shall be enforceable by or
against the transferor or the transferee;
(d) impose on the transferor an obligation to enter
into such written agreements with or execute such
other instruments in favour of any other subsequent
transferee as may be stipulated in the scheme.
(e) mention the functions and duties of the
transferee;
(f) make such supplemental, incidental and
consequential provisions as the transferor considers
appropriate including provision stipulating the order
as taking effect; and
(g) provide that the transfer shall be provisional for a
stipulated period.
(6) All debts and obligations incurred, all contracts
entered into and all matters and things engaged to
be done by the Board, with the Board or for the
Board, or the State Transmission Utility or
generating company or transmission licensee or
distribution licensee, before a transfer scheme
becomes effective shall, to the extent specified in the
relevant transfer scheme, be deemed to have been
incurred, entered into or done by the Board, with the
Board or for the State Government or the transferee
and all suits or other legal proceedings instituted by
or against the Board or transferor, as the case may
be, may be continued or instituted by or against the
State Government or concerned transferee, as the
case may be.
(7) The Board shall cease to be charged with and
shall not perform the functions and duties with
regard to transfers made on and after the effective
date.
- 47 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
Explanation.--For the purposes of this Part,--
(a) "Government company" means a Government
company formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);
(b) "company" means a company to be formed and
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
1956) to undertake generation or transmission or
distribution in accordance with the scheme under
this Part.
97. Thus, Section 131 of the Electricity Act provides
for vesting of property of the Board in the State
Government. It states that after the property is vested in
the State Government by the State Electricity Board, the
State Government shall re-vest the property in a
Government company or in a company or companies in
accordance with the transfer scheme. Section, 131(4) of
the Electricity Act contemplates the formulation of such
a transfer scheme.
98. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein Section
133 of the Electricity Act which refers to provisions
related to officers and employees, and states as follows:
133. Provisions relating to officers and
employees.--The State Government may, by a
transfer scheme, provide for the transfer of the
officers and employees to the transferee on the
vesting of properties, rights and liabilities in such
transferee as provided under Section 131.
(2) Upon such transfer under the transfer scheme, the
personnel shall hold office or service under the
- 48 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
transferee on such terms and conditions as may be
determined in accordance with the transfer scheme:
Provided that such terms and conditions on the
transfer shall not in any way be less favourable than
those which would have been applicable to them if
there had been no such transfer under the transfer
scheme.
Provided further that the transfer can be provisional
for a stipulated period.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section and the
transfer scheme, the expression "officers and
employees" shall mean all officers and employees
who on the date specified in the scheme are the
officers and employees of the Board or transferor, as
the case may be.
99. Thus, as per the mandate of Section 133 (2) of the
Electricity Act, the transferred personnel are to be
governed by terms and conditions as may be determined
in accordance with the transfer scheme. The proviso to
Section 133 (2) protects the interest of the transferees in
so far as the conditions of their service are not to be less
favorable than those which would have been applicable
to them had no transfer taken place.
100. As per the contention of the learned counsel for
the respondent the MACP Scheme was implemented after
the transfer and is new general Scheme applicable to all.
101. Since, the Section 133 of Electricity Act, 2003
guarantees that terms of service shall not be less
- 49 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
favourable upon transfer to a successor company and the
MACP Scheme was implemented after the transfer and is
a new, general scheme applicable to all, therefore Fixing
pay correctly under this new scheme cannot be termed
as making terms "less favourable." Further from the
aforesaid Sections of the Act 2003 it is evident that the
Act 2003 does not fossilize pay scales or prohibit
corrections.
102. This Court, in view of the discussions made
hereinabove and law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court,
finds no illegality in the impugned order dated
18.11.2016 whereby the Office Order No. 292 dated
24.02.2012 has been withdrawn as also the
consequential orders vide Notification No. 338 dated
26.07.2017 for G.T.O. and notification No. 1313 dated
18.07.2017 and in our considered view the same requires
no interference by this Court.
103. Further from perusal of the impugned order it is
evident that the learned writ Court‟s finding that Office
Order No. 292 was not properly approved by the full
Board is a finding of fact based on record and even if
signed by the Secretary, if it substantially altered the
Board's sanctioned Resolution No. 2492 without Board
- 50 -
2026:JHHC:1139-DB
approval, it was without jurisdiction. Its subsequent
withdrawal was thus valid.
104. The learned Single Judge, taking into
consideration the aforesaid fact, has refused to interfere
with the impugned orders, which in our considered view,
as per the discussion made herein above, cannot be
faulted with.
105. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeals fail
and are dismissed.
106. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
15th January, 2026
Alankar/
A.F.R
Uploaded on 16.01.2026
- 51 -
