Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 147

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Sachchidanand Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 253 of 2023|L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.P. Singh, Ajay Kumar Pathak, Bandana Kumari Sinha
For the Respondents: Manish Kumar, Sunita Kumari, Rajiv Ranjan, Mohan Kr. Dubey

Under the MACP Scheme, employees are entitled to the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of revised pay bands, not the grade pay of the next promotional post. Administrative orders contradicting statutory or board-approved policies without proper authorization are void and can be retrospectively withdrawn.

Headnote:(A) Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 131 and 133 - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Scope and implementation - The Scheme entitles employees to the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy of the recommended revised pay bands, not the grade pay of a promotional post - Administrative instructions cannot override or supplant existing statutory provisions or resolution frameworks - Executive orders which are not duly approved by the competent governing board lack the force of law and can be withdrawn. (Paras 79, 80, 90, 91, 99)

(B) Administrative Law - Executive Orders - Status and validity - An executive order that modifies a Board-sanctioned resolution without obtaining proper approval from the competent governing body is void and subject to retrospective withdrawal to ensure alignment with original policy. (Paras 25, 26, 89, 103)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, retired employees, sought pay fixation benefits based on a specific office order that allowed for Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) pay scales linked to promotional hierarchies rather than the immediate next higher grade pay. During the pendency of the litigation, the authorities withdrew the impugned office order retrospectively, stating it had never received the required approval from the governing board and was contrary to the intended MACP Scheme guidelines.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the MACP Scheme is designed to alleviate stagnation by providing placement in the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy, and it does not mandate parity with promotional posts. The court further held that the withdrawal of an executive order that lacked proper board approval was a valid administrative correction.

Issues: The primary questions were whether the MACP Scheme should be based on the grade pay of a promotional post or the immediate next higher grade pay in the hierarchy, and whether an executive order could be withdrawn retrospectively when found to have been issued without proper board approval.

Ratio Decidendi: The Scheme does not grant an automatic right to the grade pay of a promotional post; rather, it provides for financial advancement to the immediate next higher grade pay. As the contested executive order was issued without proper authorization and contradicted the established scheme, its withdrawal was legally justified. Result : Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and history of the disputed macp orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. evolution of pay revision and macp schemes in the electricity board. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. invalidity of executive orders lacking formal board approval. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. arguments regarding vested rights and correct pay fixation. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. defence of administrative correction based on statutory macp rules. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
6. macp provides immediate next grade pay, not next promotion. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81)
7. executive orders cannot override statutory or formal board resolutions. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93)
8. successor entity powers and validation of retrospective order withdrawal. (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)

C.A.V. on 16.12.2025 Pronounced on 15/01/2026 Per 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 applicat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 147

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJSachchidanand Prasad – AppellantVersusChairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited – RespondentL.P.A. No. 253 of 2023|L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Sachchidanand Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 253 of 2023|L.P.A. No. 21 of 2023