Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha and Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, learned AC to SC 11 for the State.

2. By filing the present writ application the petitioner is assailing the office order as contained in Memo No. 927 dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure 1 to the writ application), whereby, it has been ordered that since the petitioner has failed to pass Departmental Accounts Examination, no benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme would be applicable to him and further direction has been given for recovery of excess amount already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a direction upon the respondents to grant the pension and gratuity on the revised pay scale, after granting the benefit under the ACP/MACP scheme.

3. The short facts of the case which led to the filing of the present application is, that the petitioner was initially appointed on compassionate ground vide memo no. 584 dated 15.01.1988, in the pay scale of Rs.580-860/-. The petitioner passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and after serving so many places, he was sent to the office of the respondent, Executive Engineer, Ara. It is next contended that in view of the decision taken by the State Government, the Lower Division Clerk and the Upper Division Clerk were merged in a single cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). It is also submitted that after implementation of 5th Pay Revision Commission, the salary of the petitioner was revised in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/- and on being found entitled, the petitioner was allowed the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACPs and regular salary on the revised pay scale have been paid till the date of his retirement. However, on being superannuated from his service on 31st of January 2018, the respondent authority came out with the impugned order as contained in memo no. 927 dated 18.05.2018, whereby it has been ordered that as the petitioner failed to pass Departmental Accounts Examination, he is not entitled for the benefits of ACP/MACP scheme and accordingly, the order of recovery has been passed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that as the petitioner has not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination, as is required under the ACP scheme, he has not been found entitled to the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP. He further submits that since the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility for the benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme, no order could be passed in his favour.

5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this court towards the letter no. 539 dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure 6 to the interlocutory application), issued by the respondent Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department, Dihari, clarified the position with regard to extending the benefits of ACP/MACP to the employees, who have not passed departmental examination.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further harping upon the notification issued by General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, as contained in Memo No. 6315 dated 29.06.2020, submits that the aforesaid notification clearly postulates no necessity of passing Computer Eligibility Test for the Muffasil Clerk in spite of that those post fall within the category of group D class. While concluding his submission, he also submits that various judgments have been passed by learned Division Benches of this Court in identical matters holding that the passing of departmental examination is not a condition precedent for benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme.

7. So far the issue involved in the present case, with regard to grant of ACP/MACP to the employees who have not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination, the same is no longer res integra, and it has been settled by various Division Benches of this court including in the case of Uday Sankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar and others, reported