The main legal point established in the judgment is that Assured Career Progression benefits may have lower pay scales and are subject to the State's policy decisions, distinct from the pay scales of promotional posts.

D.N. Patel, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 dated 29th September, 2008, whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and, therefore, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The claim of this appellant (original petitioner) to get the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/ as first Assured Career Progression benefit and the claim of this appellant to get the pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/ as second Assured Career Progression benefit has been denied and what is awarded by the Government at Rs.4,5007,000/ pay scale as first Assured Career Progression benefit and Rs.5,0008,000/ pay scale as second Assured Career Progression benefit to the Village Level Workers (VLWs) has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. Against this order, this appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) was entitled to get promotion on the post of Block Agriculture Officer, which is a first promotional post having a pay scale of Rs.5,0008000/ and, therefore, if promotion is not given to this appellant, he is entitled to get the pay scale of promotional post i.e. Block Agriculture Officer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that thereafter second promotional post is SubDivisional Agriculture Officer having a pay scale of Rs.6,50010,500/ and if the second promotion is not given to this appellant, he is entitled to get the pay scale of second promotional post, whereas, instead of promotion the respondentGovernment has given Assured Career Progression benefit and has granted the pay scale of Rs.4,5007000/ and for second Assured Career Progression benefit the pay scale is given at Rs.5,0008,000/. It is in violation of the Government's resolution bearing no. 8299 dated 8th August, 2002, which is annexed at Annexure1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and also it is in violation of letter no. 1116 dated 17th July, 2003, which is annexed at Annexure6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2006 vide order dated 29th September, 2008.The circular issued by the State of Jharkhand dated 28th April, 2005, which is annexed at Annexure- A to the counter affidavit dated 16th April, 2007 to the memo of the writ petition, has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and as per the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand, in fact Village Level Workers are not entitled to get any promotion. Only exception is that if they have completed eight years of service and if they are science graduate, there is 25% reservation for the post of Block Agriculture Officer. In the said policy decision, it has been mentioned that those Village Level Workers who were appointed prior to 8th February, 1989, their basic pay scale will be treated at Rs.4,0006,000/ and if they are not given promotion after period of 12 years, they will entitle to get the benefit of first Assured Career Progression at the pay scale of Rs.4,5007,000/ and if they are not given second promotion then after further period of 12 years, they will entitle to get the benefit of second Assured Career Progression at the pay scale of Rs.5,0008,000/. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

Reasons:

4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and cir