The MACP guarantees financial advancement to the immediate next higher grade pay, not promotional posts, and unapproved executive orders cannot override statutory regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are identical, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the matters have been tagged together. Accordingly, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayer in L.P.A. No. 253 of 2023:

2. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5464 of 2015 by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that fate of similar impugned orders/notifications have already been decided vide order dated 08.9.2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3306 of 2015 by dismissing the writ petition.

Prayer in L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023:

3. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been directed against order/judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3306 of 2015 by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners has been dismissed finding no illegality in the order passed by the respondents-authorities.

Factual Aspect:

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings available on record, reads as under:

5. Before referring to the factual aspect of the matter, it requires to mention herein that initially writ petition being W.P. (S) No.3306 of 2015 was filed on 23.07.2015 seeking a direction upon the respondents to correctly fix the pay scale of the petitioners after giving due benefit of MACP with the date of entitlement of each petitioner and also to pay the arrears to each petitioner w.e.f. the date of their entitlement along with interest.

6. At the stage of the writ proceedings, the petitioners had relied upon the various decisions made by the erstwhile electricity board i.e. Bihar State Electricity Board succeeded by Jharkhand State Electricity Board including the office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 issued by Jharkhand State Electricity Board, which, as per the petitioners, was clarifying earlier decisions contained in resolution No. 2492 dated 12.05.2010 and also office order No. 546 dated 13.04.2011 and office order No. 1724 dated 03.11.2011.

7. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents passed an order dated 18.11.2016 whereby the office order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 was withdrawn with retrospective effect and further a direction has been issued to grant 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd M.A.C.P in terms of resolution No. 2492 dated 12.05.2010 and office order No. 1724 dated 03.11.2011.

8. The impugned order dated 18.11.2016 was followed by two consequential orders vide Notification No. 338 dated 26.07.2017 for G.T.O. and Notification No. 1313 dated 18.07.2017.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitioners-appellants filed interlocutory application seeking amendment of the writ petition and challenged the annulment of the Office Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 with retrospective date vide the Office Order No. 2251 dated 18.11.2016 whereby benefits given to the petitioners vide Office Order No. 292 dated 24.02.2012 were withdrawn with retrospective date. The writ petitioners-appellants also challenged those two notifications being Notification No. 338 dated 26.07.2017 for G.T.O. and notification No. 1313 dated 18.07.2017 for General Cadres Graduate Engineers Electrical. The said interlocutory application was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the amended writ