SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Lt. Harihar Prasad – Petitioner 
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012 With W.P.(S) No. 2381 of 2012
Decided On : 27-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II, Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II.

Industry Extension Officers, as feeder cadre to Project Manager under Cadre Rules, entitled to 1st ACP in Rs.6500-10500 scale; order reducing to Rs.5500-9000 relying on deleted Finance Resolution clause quashed; no recovery, arrears directed.

Headnote:(A) Finance Department Resolution dated 14.08.2002 - Clause 3(X) - Portion deleted in 2007 - Impugned order reducing 1st ACP pay scale of Industry Extension Officers from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs.5500-9000 and directing recovery of excess payment, relied on deleted clause, hence invalid - Industry Extension Officers included in feeder cadre (Schedule IVB) for promotion to initial rung (Project Manager/Functional Manager) under Industries Service Cadre Rules, 1987 - Entitled to ACP in next promotional scale Rs.6500-10500 to avoid stagnation - Promotion of 57.69% from cadre acknowledges hierarchical post - Cannot approbate and reprobate on existence of promotion avenues - Object of ACP/MACP schemes is financial upgradation on 12/24 or 10/20/30 years service without promotion. (Paras 6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14)

(B) Industries Service Cadre Rules, 1987 - Rule 11(c), Schedules I, IV - Confirm three feeder groups including Industry Extension Officers for promotions to Project Manager (Rs.6500-10500 revised), Functional Manager (Rs.10000-15600), etc. - Feeder post status upheld. (Paras 6,12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Industry Extension Officers, granted provisional 1st ACP in 2006 in Rs.6500-10500 scale w.e.f. different dates; benefits not confirmed within one year; 2012 order modified earlier grants, reduced scale to Rs.5500-9000 citing no specific hierarchical post, directed recovery; writs challenge order, seek confirmation and arrears.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed; grant 1st ACP in Rs.6500-10500 scale, release withheld salary arrears, consequential benefits including MACP; no recovery.

Issues: Validity of impugned order relying on deleted clause 3(X); entitlement of Industry Extension Officers to ACP in next promotional scale or immediate next scale; existence of specific hierarchical promotional post.

Ratio Decidendi: Reliance on deleted clause renders order invalid; cadre rules and promotions establish Industry Extension Officers as feeder to Project Manager, justifying ACP in that scale; ACP object is stagnation relief where promotion avenues limited but exist - financial upgradation to identified post.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. writs seek quashing of acp reduction and confirmation of benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. provisional acp granted to ieos; 2012 order imposes recovery. (Para 4 , 5)
3. dispute over ieo cadre status and acp pay scale. (Para 6 , 7)
4. order invalid: relies on deleted clause; govt inconsistent on hierarchy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. rules and sc confirm ieos' feeder post to project manager. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. acp prevents stagnation via financial upgradation without promotion. (Para 14)
7. quash orders; grant acp scale, arrears, and benefits. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Since common issue is involved in both these writ petitions; as such, both were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In W.P.(S) No. 5216 of 2012 the petitioners have made the following prayers:

“i) Quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi in terms of which the order no. 964 dated 09-04-2006 and order no. 1625 dated 17-07-2006 and order no. 88 dated 15-01-2007 has been modified and the benefit of A.C.P. granted to Industries Extension Officers by placing them in pay scale of 6500-10500 has been reduced to pay scale of 5500-9000 and direction for recovery of alleged excess payment has been issued;

ii) Upon quashing the office order dated 14-06-2012 issued by the Director Industries, Jharkhand, Ranchi be further pleased to hold that the Industry Extension Officers are entitled to the pay scale of 6500-10500 consequent to grant of benefit of 1st A.C.P.;

iii) Further, for a direction upon the respondents to pass an order of confirmation of benefit of 1st A.C.P. of the petitioners and release the arrears of salary of the petitioners which has been withheld on account of non- confirmation of the benefits of 1st A.C.P. granted to the petitioners Vide office order dated 19-04-2006 and 17-07-2006;

AND

For any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

3. In W.P.(S) No. 2381 of 2012 the petitioner has made the following prayers:

“2.1) to immediately and forthwith confirm benefit of 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP) granted to the petitioner vide office order dated 17-07-2006 with all consequential benefits;

ii) to immediately and forthwith release the arrears of salary of the petitioner on account of increments to which the petitioner is entitled and which has been withheld on account of non-confirmation of the benefit of 1st Assured Career Progression granted to the petitioner vide office order dated 17-07-2006.

iii) For further direction upon the respondents to pay interest on the same on account of delayed payment of salary for no fault on the part of the petitioners.

IV) An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 14.06.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 by which the respondent specifically observed that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of First ACP in the pay-scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and has further directed departmental recovery as the First ACP has been granted to the petitioner wrongly.

AND

For any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

4. Briefly stated, all the petitioners are working as Industry Extension Officer, Directorate of Industry, Government of Jharkhand. In the year, 2002 the State Government implemented ACP scheme for its employees and the Administrative Department was authorized to grant the benefit provisionally and get the same confirmed by the Finance Department within a period of one year.

In the year, 2005 respondent authorities via amendment empowered the Departmental Secretary of concerned department to confirm the benefit of ACP within a period of one year. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted benefit of 1st ACP in 2006 w.e.f. different dates; however, the respondents did not confirm the benefits within one year and due to this inaction, the petitioners were denied the consequential benefits pursuant to grant of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top