ORDER :

1. Heard the Parties.

2. Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with a prayer for setting aside the reasoned order dated 13.05.2015 (Annexure-4), whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected regarding grant of 2nd and 3rd MACP. Further prayer has been made for grant of statutory interest on gratuity as the amount of gratuity was paid to the petitioner after four years from the date of his retirement.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee in the office of Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation on 02.07.1973 as Driver. Thereafter, on 08.04.1997, his services was absorbed in the State Commission, Consumer Protection Department of the then Govt. of Bihar. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was entitled for 2nd and 3 rd ACP/ MACP but the same was illegally withheld. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed W.P.(S). No. 1241 of 2010 and the same was disposed of on 25.07.2012 with a direction to take decision regarding extension of benefits of ACP/MACP to the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, when nothing was done, petitioner again filed W.P.(S). No. 2958 of 2014 for extending the benefits of ACP/MACP and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the respondent to take decision with respect to the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of the same.

However, the respondent authority vide order dated 13.05.2015, rejected the claim of the petitioner regarding extension of 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP benefits to him, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application.

4. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 2nd and 3 rd MACP as he had rendered 35 years of services under the respondent-Department. To support his contention, Mr. Dubey places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in case of Parsuram Choudhary Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.S. No. 3672 of 2009), and submits that in view of the said judgment, petitioner is entitled for benefits of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP. Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents being the instrumentality of State are bound to work within the four corners of law and to act in accordance with law.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Shrey Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is not entitled for benefits of 2nd and 3rd MACP. Mr. Mishra further argues that petitioner has already been paid the benefits of 1st ACP for which he was entitled for. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards impugned order dated 13.05.2015 and submits that petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in the year 1973 under Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation and thereafter, on 08.04.1997 petitioner's services were absorbed in the State Commission, Consumer Protection Department of the then Govt. of Bihar. Learned counsel further argues that provision of ACP/MACP is guided by Finance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand's Circular No. 5207 dated 14.08.2002 and services under Corporation, Boards and similar other Institutions does not qualify for ACP/MACP. Admittedly, the petitioner served for 35 years and 10 months but he rendered 23 years of services under Bihar Food and Civil Supply Corporation, Bihar, Patna and only 12 years services under State Government and as such, he is entitled for 1st ACP only, which has already been granted to the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP.

6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the respondent-State while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP. Petitioner has earlier approached t