Eligibility for ACP/MACP benefits in public employment depends on fulfillment of educational qualifications, as specified by government guidelines.

Order :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The petitioner – widow of Late Jagarnath Gope, who died in harness on 20.10.2015 while working as Forester in the office of the respondent no. 5 – the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Chaibasa, has filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs:

(i) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant the benefit of 2^nd ACP/MACP on completion of 12/24/36 years of satisfactory service as the husband of the petitioner is legally entitled for grant of ACP/MACP and to fix the pay of the deceased employee as well as pension on enhanced pay scale after grating the benefits of 2^nd ACP/MACP.

(ii) For issuance of direction upon the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary after granting the benefits of 2^nd ACP/MACP and to pay the difference of salary and difference of pension accrued after granting the benefits of 2^nd ACP/MACP along with statutory interest as applicable under law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard on 30.12.1976 and he joined the service on 04.01.1977. Thereafter, he was transferred from one Division to another in the erstwhile State of Bihar and lastly, he was posted as Forester in the office of the respondent no. 5 where he died in harness on 20.10.2015.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner’s husband, during his lifetime, had filed several representations for grant of ACP/MACP after completion of the required period of service, however, the same remained unresponded. However, subsequent to his death, 1^st ACP was granted to him in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 09.08.1999 vide office order no. 195 dated 27.11.2017 and his pay was fixed accordingly vide office order no. 211 dated 13.12.2017. Since the benefit of 1^st ACP was granted to the husband of the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999, his 2^nd ACP/MACP had fallen due in the year 2009 i.e., prior to his death. However, the same was denied to him. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has been compelled to prefer the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the husband of the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years in 2007, and the 2^nd ACP/MACP had fallen due subsequently in the year 2009, there should not have been mandatory condition of passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination for grant of the same.

5. Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, AC to SC (Mines)-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, refers to the counter affidavit dated 26.07.2019 and submits that in view of the circular dated 13.02.1975 issued by the Addl. Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar and resolution dated 17.11.2022 issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, if a Forest Guard/Forester is non-matriculate, he is neither eligible for promotion to the post of Range Officer nor for getting 2^nd ACP. Accordingly, a Forest Guard, if otherwise eligible and has educational qualification of middle pass, he would get 1^st ACP in the pay scale of Forester (Rs. 4000-6000 with effect from 15.11.2000) and if he is matriculate, he would get 2^nd ACP too in the pay scale of Range Officer (Rs. 8000-13500) with financial benefits from 01.03.2007. Thus, a non-matric Forest Guard/Forester would not be eligible for 2^nd ACP/MACP, as per the aforesaid circular and resolution.

6. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was non-matriculate and was appointed on the post of Forest Guard on 04.01.1977 and was promoted to the post of Forester on 23.03.2009. He was given the benefit of 1^st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 vide office order no. 195 dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa Forest Division, Chaibasa in consonance with the decision taken by a screening committee headed by the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests (RCCF), Jamshedpur on 10.11.2017. In the meeting of the said screening committee, the case of husband