IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
Raj Kumar Thakur Son of Late Baidhynath Thakur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3915 of 2012
Decided on : 08-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for acp benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. background of the original petitioner's employment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. respondents argue against granting second acp. (Para 8 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. court’s reasoning regarding promotion and acp. (Para 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. entitlement to second acp and relief ordered. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the heirs of the original petitioner (herein after referred to as the ‘petitioners’) and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The original petitioner filed the instant writ application for the following reliefs :-
“1. i) For directing the respondent authorities to give the replacement scale of 4000- 6000 to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as per the Resolution no. 660 dated 8.2.99 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar.
ii) For directing the respondent authorities to give the benefit of first and second Assured Career Promotion to the petitioner in the higher scale w.e.f. 9.8.99 as per the Notification no. 4685 dated 25.6.2003 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar.
ii) For directing the respondent authorities to pay the cost of Rs. 10000/- to the petitioner in light of the order dated 19.10.2011 passed in M.J.C. No. 1633/2010 by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. The original petitioner having died on 22.6.2021, he was substituted by his legal heirs, the petitioners herein, on 14.7.2025.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to developments which have taken place during pendency of the instant application, he is not pressing prayer nos.1(i) and 1(iii) of the writ application. The instant application is confined to prayer no.1(ii) which is for a direction to the respondent authorities to give the benefit of first and second Assured Career Progression (‘ACP’ in short) scheme with effect from 9.8.1999 as per Notification no.4685 dated 25.6.2003 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
5. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the original petitioner was appointed as a Superior Field Worker on 13.10.1960 and retired from service on 31.1.2000 while working as Basic Health Worker in the Primary Health Centre at Masahari in Muzaffarpur. He was granted the first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981 which however was wrongly shifted to 16.5.1984. Further the second time bound promotion granted to him was cancelled and certain amounts were adjusted against his post retiral dues.
6. The above actions of the respondents led to the petitioner filing CWJC no.690 of 2005 which was allowed by order dated 7.12.2009.
7. It is further case of the petitioner that though he was given the benefit of first ACP vide order dated 30.4.2005 with effect from 9.8.1999 but the benefits thereof have still not been paid and further he has not received the grant of second ACP. All this has led to filing of the instant writ application for the reliefs as stated herein above.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that while making the claim for grant of benefits of ACP, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands as he did not make the prayer for grant of ACP in the writ application filed by him in the year 2005. The said writ application was confined only with respect to the grievance of the time bound promotion and recovery of the excess amount.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was appointed as a Superior Field Worker in 1960 and subsequently under a policy decision of the government it was decided to adjust all the working hands under the programme in the regular service of the Health Department as Basic Health Worker. Accordingly, the petitioner’s service was absorbed by order dated 16.5.1974. With respect to grant of ACP it was submitted that by order dated 30.4.2005 the petitioner was granted the benefit of first ACP with effect from 9.8.1999. As in the service period the petitioner got regular promotion in the
The adjustment to Basic Health Worker position was not a promotion; therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of second Assured Career Progression from 9.8.1999.
The Court clarified the difference between the replacement scale and upgradation in pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, emphasizing that the revision in pay scale is distinct from ....
Authorities have discretion to correct financial discrepancies in pay, yet wrongful promotions may negate claims for additional benefits like A.C.P. confirmations.
A writ of mandamus can be issued to direct authorities to resolve pending claims expeditiously.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the regular service for the purpose of ACP benefits should commence from the date of absorption, as per the MACP Scheme.
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.