Khurshid Alam vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for granting the actual/ monetary benefits of 2nd ACP from the date of his entitlement and also the benefits of 3rd MACP, as he had already completed 30 years of services prior to his superannuation.

The short fact of the case as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed as a literate Constable in the year 1971 and accordingly, he joined the said post and performed his duties to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. As per the performance rendered by the petitioner, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the 1973 and accordingly, his services were confirmed. Thereafter, in the year 1982, an order was issued by the respondent-authorities granting promotion to the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police and after finding him fit, he was allowed to function as Sub-Inspector of Police and accordingly, after satisfactory service rendered by him as Sub-Inspector of Police, he was confirmed on the said post. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2000, after coming into force the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand and since then, he was performing his duty as Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Jharkhand.

In view of the policy decision floated by the State of Jharkhand, a list was prepared with respect to grant of benefits of the ACP/ MACP to the employees of the State and the case of the petitioner was also considered along with other, in which he was found fit for grant of the benefits of the 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999, which is evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition wherein the name of the petitioner stands at Sl. No. 304. Though the petitioner was found fit for grant of 2nd ACP but subsequently, as he was superannuated from the services on 31.01.2013, he has not been paid the actual benefits of ACP and also the benefits of 3rd MACP, though he has completed 30 years of service prior to his superannuation. Several representations were filed by the respondentauthorities but the same has not been considered and as such, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that petitioner is entitled for monetary/ actual benefits of 2nd ACP, as the department has considered his case and found fit for extending the benefits of 2 nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999, which is reflected from Annexure-1 of the writ petition. It has been further argued that since the petitioner has completed 30 years of regular and unblemished service, prior to his superannuation, he is also entitled for the benefits of 3rd MACP and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pay him the actual/ monetary benefits from the date of his entitlement.

On the other hand, since no counter-affidavit has been filed, Mr. Samir Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that he is not in a position to state as to why the case of the petitioner was not considered for grant of the benefits, as prayed for by him in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further argues that if a petitioner files a fresh representation before the respondent-authorities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and if the case of the petitioner is found fit, the benefits as prayed for by him, will be extended to him, within a stipulated period.

Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate to this Court that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 2nd ACP, which is also apparent from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Further, petitioner is also entitled for 3rd MACP in view of the fact that he has rendered 30 years of continuous and unblemished service prior to his superannuation.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to take a conscious decision with respect to grant of the benefits as claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found fit for the benefits, as claimed by him, the same shall be extended to him within a further period of two weeks.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of.