Dinesh Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

The instant writ  application  has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“1....for issuance  of an  appropriate writ  / writs, order / orders, direction /directions upon the respondents as to why respondents may not be directed to pay 2nd  ACP from 16.03.2003 in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- and MACP from  16.03.2013,  Pay  Band-II in  the  pay  scale  of  Rs.  9300-34800/- and on that basis the fitment of the 7th pay commission and after that on that basis the payment of gratuity, earned leave salary, and pension with statutory interest after quashing the order dated 30.07.2011 and letter dated 13.10.2011 issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure 3 & 4) so far as the petitioner is concerned.”

The only  stand  of the respondent-State  is  that  the  petitioner  is  not entitled for 2nd ACP/MACP as he has not passed the departmental examination.  He relies upon  the averments made  in the counter-affidavit however he could not dispute the fact that the issue with regard to passing of departmental examination for the purpose of ACP/MACP benefit is now no more res integra.

As a matter of fact, the issue with regard to passing of departmental examination for ACP/MACP benefit has been set at rest in “Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.” 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph nos. 13 to 17 as under:

“13. At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale  to  the next  higher grade  retaining  the employee  on the  post  held  by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period.

The  object  and  purpose  of  ACP/MACP  Scheme  has  been  reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.

In sum and substance, both ACP and MACP Schemes are schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail  of  adequate  promotional  opportunities,  get  some  relief  in  the  form  of financial benefits. Accordingly, the schemes provide for regular financial upgradation on completion of 12-24 years and 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. They are incentive schemes for the employees who complete a particular period of service but without getting promotion for lack of promotional avenues. The effect of the schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of the scheme.

In  Union  of  India v. G.  Ranjanna  reported  in (2008)  14 SCC  721,  the three-Judges  Bench  of  this  Court  held  that  in  situ  promotions  are  made  to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.

It was further observed that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.”

Since the issue with regard to payment of ACP is now no more res  integra, accordingly, the  order  dated 30.07.2011  so  far as petitioner is concerned, and also letter dated 13.10.2011 issued by respondent no.4 whereby  order  of  recovery  was  passed  against  the  petitioner are  quashed and set aside.

The instant writ application stands allowed and the concerned respondent is directed to look into the matter and calculate the ACP/MACP benefits of the petitioner and pass an order to that effect. The petitioner is directed  to  serve  a  copy  of  this  order  to  respondent  no.4  for  brevity.  The concerned respondent shall make payment to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks after serving a copy of this order to the respondent no.4.