IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Madhuresh Prasad, J.
Tarkeshwar Prasad and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.288 of 2020
Decided On : 07-07-2022
ACP/MACP Scheme - Grant of Benefits - Rule 157(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 - Summary: The court allowed the substitution application for the petitioner No.2 and quashed the rejection of the petitioners' claim for ACP/MACP benefits, citing the settled legal position that passing the accounts examination is not a requirement for such benefits. The matter was remitted for consideration and grant of the benefits within eight weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' claim for ACP and MACP benefits was rejected by the Authorities based on non-passing of the accounts examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the rejection of the petitioners' claim for ACP/MACP benefits and remitted the matter for consideration and grant of said benefits within eight weeks.
Issues: Rejection of petitioners' claim for ACP/MACP benefits based on non-passing of the accounts examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the settled legal position that passing the accounts examination is not a requirement for grant of ACP/MACP benefits, as established by various judgments including the recent decision of the Division Bench in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Sri Ram Subhag Singh.
Final Decision: The rejection of the petitioners' claim for ACP/MACP benefits was quashed, and the matter was remitted for consideration and grant of said benefits within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for State.
2. Hard copy of the counter affidavit has been placed on record. Copy of which has already been served on the petitioners’ counsel.
3. Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 has been filed for substituting the name of the son of the petitioner No.2 in the instant proceedings on account of unfortunate demise of petitioner No.2 during pendency of the instant proceedings. Without objection, that substitution application is allowed.
4. Let the name of the petitioner of I.A. No. 1 of 2020 be substituted in place of the petitioner No.2 in the cause title as per details contained in the Interlocutory Application.
5. The claim of the petitioners for grant of benefits under the ACP and MACP Scheme has been rejected by the Authorities. The rejection order is dated 30-08-2019.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to non-passing of the accounts examination, the authorities rejected the petitioners’ claim to benefits under the ACP/ MACP Scheme. He submits that non-passing of the accounts examination cannot be made a ground to deprive the petitioners of the said benefits since the repeated decisions of this Court make it clear that there is no requirement of passing of such examination for being considered or for being granted benefits under the ACP/ MACP Scheme.
7. The Respondent State counsel, relying upon the Rule 157(J) of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules, has made some submission opposing the prayer. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the issue now stands settled in view of the recent decision of the Division Bench in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Sri Ram Subhag Singh arising out of LPA No. 4 of 2021. The Division Bench, after taking into consideration the earlier pronouncements, in this regard, including the decision in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471 which had unsuccessfully been assailed by the State Government before the Hon’ble Apex Court, has held that for non-passing of the accounts examination; consideration, or grant of ACP / MACP cannot be refused. The relevant extract of decision in the case of Sri Ram Subhag Singh (Supra) is being reproduced:-
“5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issue involved in the appeal is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by the Division Benches of this Court in the following decisions:—
(i). Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar,reported in (2011) 2 PLJR 136
(ii). Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in (2012) 1 PLJR 663.
(iii). Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar,reported in (2017) 3 PLJR 824.
(iv). Judgment dated 19.3.2018, passed in LPA No.599/2015 (Ramadhar Thakur v. The State of Bihar)
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the facts are not in dispute between the parties. The only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether passing of departmental accounts examination would be necessary for grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression, provided under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 read with Clause (J) of S
Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar
Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar
Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar
Masomat Indu Devi v. State of Bihar
Md. Shamsuddin vs. The State of Bihar
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar
Rameshwar Roy v. The State of Bihar
Shashi Shekhar Ambasta v. The State of Bihar
State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar
Passing the accounts examination is not a requirement for grant of ACP/MACP benefits under Rule 157(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958.
The passing of accounts examination cannot be made a ground to deprive the petitioners of ACP/MACP benefits, as per the settled legal position and recent Division Bench decisions.
Passing the departmental accounts examination is not a condition precedent for grant of A.C.P. Rules under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme)Rules, 20....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.