Dilip Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 409 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dilip Kumar Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand on 27 January, 2026

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                        2026:JHHC:2202

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012
1. Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Lt. Harihar Prasad, resident of Flat No. H-2,
Sahdeo Mansion, Durga Road, Uliyan, Kadma, P.O. & P.S. Kadma,
Singhbhum East
2. Anil Kumar Sinha s/o Sri Bhagwat Sinha, resident of Bharti Compound,
c/o K.K. Sinha, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi
3. Kumar Ravi s/o Lt. Nand Lal Prasad, r/o Flat No. 202, Vasudeo Enclave,
P.O. Bariatu, P.S Sadar, Deepa Toli, Ranchi
4. Narendra Kumar Singh s/o Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, r/o Gosai Tola,
P.O. & P.S. Chutiya, District Ranchi
5. Sushil Kumar Bariyar s/o Lt. Rachita Nand Prasad, r/o 7th Lane, Natajee
Nagar, P.O.& P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi
6. Bijay Kumar Bharti s/o Arjun Bharti, r/o Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
Ranchi                                                 ... ... Petitioner(s)

                                     Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal
House, P.O. & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi
3. Director, Department of Industry, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
& P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
4. Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                                                   ... ... Respondent(s)
                                     With
                           W.P.(S) No. 2381 of 2012
Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay, son of Sri Chandradip Upadhyay, resident of
302, Divyam, Sai Vihar, Ashok Ashram Enclave, Dibdih, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, Ranchi.                                ... ... Petitioner(s)

                                     Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of Industry, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project
Building, Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
                                 1
                                                                       2026:JHHC:2202

3. Director, Department of Industry, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O.
& P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.
4. Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
                                                  ... ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s)               : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
                                      Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
                                      [in both cases]
For the Respondent(s)               : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II
                                      [in W.P.(S) No. 2381 of 2012]
                                     Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
                                      [in W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012]
                                      --------
                                  JUDGMENT

CAV On 13/01/2026 Pronounced On 27/01/2026 Since common issue is involved in both these writ petitions;

as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common

judgment.

2. In W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012 the petitioners have made the

following prayers:

"i) Quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi in terms of which the order no. 964 dated 09-04-2006 and order no. 1625 dated 17-07-2006 and order no. 88 dated 15-01-2007 has been modified and the benefit of A.C.P. granted to Industries Extension Officers by placing them in pay scale of 6500-10500 has been reduced to pay scale of 5500-9000 and direction for recovery of alleged excess payment has been issued;

ii) Upon quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi be further pleased to hold that the Industry Extension Officers are entitled to the pay scale of 6500-10500 consequent to grant of benefit of 1st A.C.P.;

iii) Further, for a direction upon the respondents to pass an order of confirmation of benefit of 1st A.C.P. of the petitioners and release the arrears of salary of the petitioners which has been withheld on account of non-

confirmation of the benefits of 1st A.C.P. granted to the petitioners Vide

2026:JHHC:2202

office order dated 19-04-2006 and 17-07-2006;

AND For any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. In W.P.(S) No. 2381 of 2012 the petitioner has made the

following prayers:

"2.1) to immediately and forthwith confirm benefit of 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) granted to the petitioner vide office order dated 17-07-2006 with all consequential benefits;

ii) to immediately and forthwith release the arrears of salary of the petitioner on account of increments to which the petitioner is entitled and which has been withheld on account of non-confirmation of the benefit of 1st Assured Career Progression granted to the petitioner vide office order dated 17-07-2006.

iii) For further direction upon the respondents to pay interest on the same on account of delayed payment of salary for no fault on the part of the petitioners.

IV) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 14.06.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 by which the respondent specifically observed that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of First ACP in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and has further directed departmental recovery as the First ACP has been granted to the petitioner wrongly.

AND For any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

4. Briefly stated, all the petitioners are working as Industry Extension

Officer, Directorate of Industry, Government of Jharkhand. In the year,

2002 the State Government implemented ACP scheme for its employees

and the Administrative Department was authorized to grant the benefit

provisionally and get the same confirmed by the Finance Department

within a period of one year.

In the year, 2005 respondent authorities via amendment empowered

the Departmental Secretary of concerned department to confirm the

2026:JHHC:2202

benefit of ACP within a period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioners

were granted benefit of 1st ACP in 2006 w.e.f. different dates; however, the

respondents did not confirm the benefits within one year and due to this

inaction, the petitioners were denied the consequential benefits pursuant to

grant of 1st ACP including MACP. Being aggrieved, the petitioners

preferred several representations but all of no avail.

5. Subsequently, the respondents issued order dated 14.06.2012 based

on clause 3(X) of Finance Department Resolution dated 14.08.2002 which

modified the benefit of ACP granted to Industries Extension Officer

(Petitioners) by reducing their pay scale to Rs. 5500-9000/- and a direction

for recovery of alleged excess payment has also been made.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred several representations

but when no action was taken, the petitioners have preferred the present

writ applications.

6. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the

reliance placed upon clause 3(X) is not tenable as in the year 2007 itself,

the respondents amended the resolution dated 14.08.2002 especially clause

3(X) and portion of the same was omitted and the respondents have

ignored the said amendment while passing the impugned order, as such the

order is wrong and liable to be quashed.

It has also been contended that Rule 11(c) of the Bihar Industries

Service Cadre Rules, 1987 categorically provides that promotion to the

initial rung of cadre shall normally be made amongst the officers listed in

Schedule IV of the Rule on the basis of seniority cum merit and that the

2026:JHHC:2202

Industries Extension Officers are included in Schedule- IVB therefore the

next promotional post of the petitioners is that of Functional

Manager/Project Manager; as such, the petitioners were rightly granted the

pay scale of 16500- 10500/- .

It has been submitted that according to Schedule IV of the

Jharkhand Industrial Service Cadre Rules, 1987 there are three groups of

feeder posts - (a) Sericulture (b) Industrial Extension Officer and

(c) Economic Investigator and from these three groups, promotion is being

granted to basic grade posts like Functional Manager/Project Manager,

Assistant Director etc. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 5354/ 2000 has confirmed the validity of schedule-IV of the 1987

Rules.

Ld. Counsel has also argued that seventeen senior Industrial

Extension Officers have been given promotion to the post of Functional

Manager/ Project Manager in compliance with the order in W.P.(C)

No. 302/2008 wherein this Court acknowledged the existence of 1987

Rule, as such the impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law.

7. Per contra, It has also been contended by Ld. Counsel for the

respondents that the petitioners were granted the benefit of ACP with a

shed of doubt for which confirmation was sought from the Finance

Department and the Department held the view that since the Industries

Extension Officers (petitioners) do not belong to the Jharkhand Industries

Service Cadre, 1987, rather they belong to graduate non-gazetted officers

of subordinate services, hence they are not covered by the rules of

2026:JHHC:2202

Jharkhand Industries Service Rules, 1987 as such, they have rightly been

confirmed the benefits of ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-.

It has also been argued that according to Para 2(3) of the Finance

Department Resolution No.5207 dated 14.08.2002, if there is no specific

hierarchical post of promotion for the cadre, then pay scale of ACP will be

next immediate pay scale mentioned in schedule I of the said resolution.

Ld. Counsel contended that the scheme of ACP envisages that the

financial progression will be accorded on specific identified post of

promotion for the cadre or where the steps of promotion are not earmarked

and fixed, in that case it will be on the next scale of Schedule-I of the

Finance Department.

Ld. Counsel had lastly submitted that as per the provision of the

Jharkhand Industries Service Rule, 1987, 50% of the vacancy on the initial

rung of Jharkhand Industries Service is to be filled up by appointing from

the three subordinate service i.e. Industries Extension Officer's, Economic

Investigator's and Pilot Project Officer's cadre in the ratio fixed on the

strength of the cadre to the gazetted post of Functional Manager/Project

Manager. Hence the posts of Functional Manager/Project Manager cannot

be claimed by the petitioner as posts occurring naturally and specifically

as next promotional post and prayed that these writ applications be

dismissed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through

the documents available on record prima-facie it appears that the

petitioners have wrongly been denied 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-

2026:JHHC:2202

10500/- by order dated 14.06.2012.

From bare perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that it has

been passed by placing reliance upon clause 3(X) of the Finance

Department Resolution No.5207 dated 14.08.2002. However, admittedly, a

portion of the aforementioned clause was deleted in the year 2007,

however, the impugned order has been passed without taking into

consideration the deletion. For brevity clause 3(X) is quoted herein below

and the underlined portion is the deleted part:

"3(x) bl ;kstuk ds varxZr foRrh; mUu;u ljdkjh lsod dks mlds laoxZ ds fy, fof'k'V :i ls fu/kkZfjr orZeku in J`a[kyk ds osruekuksa esa feysxk vkSj blds fy, dksbZ u;k in l`ftr fd;k tk;sxkA ijarq ,dy in ,oa ,sls in@in lewg@laoxZ ftlesa fof"k'V :i ls in lksiku ugh cus gq, gS vkSj lh/ks jkT; lsok@lEoxZ esa dqN izfr'kr in gh izkUs ufr gsrq d.kkZafdr gS muds laca/k esa lEc) ea=ky;@foHkkx }kjk vuqlwfp&1 esa fufnZ'V osrueku ds rqjar ckn okys osrueku esa gh foRrh; mUu;u fn;k tk;sxkA"

9. On plain scrutiny of the impugned orders, it appears that the

respondents have relied upon the deleted portion of clause 3(x) of the

Resolution dated 14.08.2002; as such, on this score alone, the respective

impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

10. It was vehemently argued by Learned Counsel for the respondents

that according to Para 2(3) of Finance Department Resolution No.5207

dated 14.08.2002, if there is no specific hierarchical post of promotion for

the cadre, then pay scale of ACP will be next immediate pay scale

mentioned in schedule I of the said resolution.

This argument is not acceptable to this Court as on the one hand; the

Government of Jharkhand has itself agreed vide notification dated

28.07.2009 that the post of Industry Extension Officer is one of the feeder

2026:JHHC:2202

posts of Project Manager and accordingly 17 employees of the petitioners'

cadre were promoted to the post of Project/Functional Manager and on the

other hand, the respondent authorities are denying that the specific

hierarchical post of promotion is not defined; as such they cannot

approbate and reprobate at the same time.

11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bihar State Subordinate

Industries Field Officers' Association v. Kapildeo Prasad Singh and

Others"1 has categorically held that the post of Industry Extension Officer

is the feeder post of the Project Managers.

12. Furthermore, on a cumulative examination of Clause 11 & 12 read

with Schedule I and IV of the Bihar Industries Service Cadre Rules, 1987,

it becomes clear that the promotional posts of the petitioners are Project

Manager & equivalent in the pay scale of Rs.1000-50-1700-EB-60-1820/-

(Rs.6500-10500/-revised), then after Functional Manager and equivalent

in the pay scale of Rs.1350-50-1750-75-2000/- (Rs.10000-15600/-revised),

then after Deputy Director of Industries & equivalent in the pay scale of

Rs.1,575-50-1,775-75-2,300/-, then after the Joint Director of Industries in

the Pay Scale of Rs. 1,900-75-2,500/- and finally the Additional Director

in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2,325-75-2,850/-.

13. It further appears that the notification dated 28.07.2009 has

earmarked 57.69% seats in promotion for Industrial Extension Officers,

and since 57.69% of the Industrial Extension Officers have already been

promoted and the petitioners were left out; as such, this Court holds that

(2000) 6 SCC 507

2026:JHHC:2202

these petitioners are entitled for the ACP of the next promotional post i.e.

of Project Manager so as to avoid stagnation which was the main object of

ACP/MACP scheme.

14. At this stage, it is pertinent to indicate that the ACP and MACP

schemes were enforced on the recommendation of the 5 th and 6th Central

Pay Commission respectively and it provided monetary benefit to the

employees on completion of 12/24 or 10/20/30 years of regular service,

who were not able to get promotion. The object of ACP/MACP is to avoid

stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. 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.

15. Having regard to the above discussion and the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, the respective impugned orders dated 14.06.2012

issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi in terms of which the

benefit of A.C.P. granted to the Industries Extension Officers by placing

them in pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- has been reduced to pay scale of

Rs. 5500-9000/- and direction for recovery of alleged excess payment has

been issued; is hereby, quashed and set aside.

The respondent authorities are directed to grant the pay scale of

2026:JHHC:2202

Rs. 6500-10500/- consequent to confirming the benefit of 1st ACP

including release of arrears of salary which was withheld on account of

non-confirmation of 1st ACP.

16. Accordingly, both these writ applications stand allowed. Pending

I.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 27/01/2026 Amit N.A.F.R Uploaded on 30/1/2026