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

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Ram Narain Prasad, Son of Late Prabhu Sao – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent 
W.P. (S) No. 3862 of 2018
Decided on : 06-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II

The grant of career progression financial benefits for non-functional in-situ promotion is not subject to requirements of passing departmental examinations or holding specific educational qualifications prescribed for regular recruitment, as the scheme's fundamental object is to relieve employee stagnation rather than award actual promotional posts.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) / Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Eligibility - Financial upgradation - Requirement of passing departmental examination - Held, ACP/MACP schemes are devised to relieve frustration arising from stagnation where promotional avenues are absent - Such schemes grant non-functional in-situ promotion for monetary benefits - Requirement of passing departmental examination or possession of educational qualifications prescribed for regular promotion does not apply to non-functional in-situ monetary benefits - If the primary object of the scheme is to prevent stagnation, refusal to grant benefits on the ground of non-attainment of specific examination or qualification is erroneous in law. (Paras 5, 9-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of the first and second financial upgradation benefits under a career progression scheme. The authorities argued these benefits were withheld due to the petitioner’s failure to pass the requisite departmental examination and lack of specified educational qualifications.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the career progression scheme provides monetary relief to employees unable to secure regular promotions, effectively serving as an anti-stagnation measure. Fulfilling educational or departmental examination requirements prescribed for regular recruitment or promotion is not a prerequisite for obtaining non-functional in-situ monetary benefits intended to alleviate stagnation.

Issues: The core issues were whether the requirement to pass a departmental examination and the possession of specific educational qualifications, which are mandatory for regular promotions, are equally applicable for the grant of financial benefits under the career progression scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that financial upgradation schemes are designed to prevent stagnation in service. Since these benefits constitute non-functional in-situ promotions (monetary benefit) rather than actual promotion to a higher post, the criteria for regular promotions, such as departmental examinations or specific educational qualifications, do not govern these in-situ benefits.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned orders quashed. Competent authority directed to grant financial benefits from the respective due dates.

Table of Content
1. nature of claim and grievance regarding denial of acp benefits. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention regarding necessity of departmental examinations for acp eligibility. (Para 3 , 4)
3. acp/macp schemes provide non-functional monetary benefits independent of promotional qualification requirements. (Para 5)
4. formal order for granting acp financial upgradation and quashing prior rejection orders. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:

i) For quashing the office order no. 9 and memo no. 74 dated10.01.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Simdega as well as quash the office order no. 42 and memo no. 1596 dated 09.12.2017 (Annexure-3/1).

ii) For directing the concern respondents to provide the 1st ACP to the petitioner as a scale structure of Rs. 4000-6000 and grade pay of Rs. 2800/- from the date of 13.07..2000 as well as 2nd ACP as a scale structure of 6500-10500/grade pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of 13.07.2012.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since he is matriculate and due to non-passing departmental examination, the benefit of 1st ACP has been delayed and 2nd ACP has been denied by the Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 which is the order passed in the case of similarly situated employees, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted the benefit of ACP to all the employees ignoring the ground for passing of the departmental examination.

4. Learned counsel for the State relies upon the counter affidavit and submits that the case of the Petitioner cannot be equated by common order passed by this Court, which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the writ petition; however, he could not dispute the fact that the issue has now been well settled that for taking the benefit under ACP/MACP Scheme the departmental examination is not required.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and also the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner with regard to ACP benefit has been set at rest by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt this issue in detail and came to the conclusion that ACP Scheme was imposed on the recommendation of 5th C.P.C and its object has been reiterated in several judgments as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it has also been held that both ACP & MACP Schemes are devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some reliefs in the form of financial benefits. For brevity, Paras- 9 to 19 in the case of Amresh Kumar Sinha (Supra) are extracted hereinbelow:

9. The Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000 as notified on 28th March, 2000 vide Rules 17 and 20 read with Schedule I thereof provides for recruitment by way of promotion. The aforesaid Rule 17, inter alia, provides that for promotion on the basis of grade of service, candidates must possess qualifications mentioned in Schedule I which, inter alia, provides that for promotion to Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification shall be graduation.

10. At the same time Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 vide sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 lays down that if the rules prescribe passing of the departmental examination or any qualification for promotion that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme. In other words, possession of essential qualification prescribed under the rules is necessary for grant of benefit under the scheme, i.e., ACP.

11. It is in view of the above rules, the contention of the State is that until and unless the Account

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