Entitlement To ACP/MACP Benefits Is Based On Completion Of Qualifying Service, Not On Additional Qualifications: Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was appointed on 15.04.1980 in the Road Construction Department of Bihar. He had completed 30 years of service. He passed the accounts examination on 23.08.2009. Then he was granted the 1st and 2nd ACP (Assured Career Progression) benefits with effect from 23.08.2009 and the 3rd MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) with effect from 15.04.2010. These were approved by the Commissioner. But later the benefits were cancelled vide Memo No. 360 dated 11.02.2013 without prior notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation. The Court by an order dated 04.02.2019 quashed the cancellation. Further the court remanded the matter to the concerned authority to take appropriate decision.

In 2014, the Finance Department passed Resolution No. 1779 regarding shifting the effective date for ACP/MACP benefits due to delays in passing the Departmental Examination. Despite the order of the court, the authorities altered the petitioner's ACP/MACP benefits by shifting the effective dates by 10 years 14 days, relying on Finance Department Resolution.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the 1st ACP, 2nd ACP, and 3rd MACP benefits from the date of completion of the qualifying years of service.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the Finance Department's Resolution dated 21.05.2014 was prospective and not applicable to him. It was contended by the petitioner that his entitlements arose prior to the issuance of 1779 resolution. It was further contended that the shifting of the ACP/MACP benefits was illegal and contrary to the earlier order of the Court. The petitioner prayed for restoration of benefits from the dates originally granted, along with consequential monetary benefits and interest.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the State respondents that the petitioner passed the Departmental Examination only on 23.08.2009, therefore, he became eligible for ACP/MACP benefits only from August 2009 and not from 1999. Further the respondents relied upon the Finance Department Resolution of 2014 for the shifting of effective dates.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the ACP and MACP Schemes are intended to grant financial upgradation to avoid stagnation and are not dependent on fulfilling additional qualifications for promotion.

The case of Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that the benefit of financial upgradation must be granted based solely on length of service. It was held by the court that the ACP and MACP Schemes were introduced to provide monetary benefits to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation in cases where no promotion existed. It was further held by the court that an employee who completes the requisite regular service is entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP Scheme. It was held that educational qualifications required for promotions are not necessary for granting ACP/MACP benefits. Therefore, insisting on additional qualifications would defeat the very purpose of the schemes. It was further held by the court that retrospective application of the 2014 Resolution to alter accrued benefits was impermissible.

It was held by the court that the petitioner is entitled to 1st & 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP with effect from the respective dates on which he completed the respective qualifying years of service. Thus, the letter No. 148 dated 22.02.2020 issued by the respondent; Memo No. 2361 (S) dated 29.09.2020 issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Road Construction Department (R.C.D), Government of Jharkhand; and Memo No. 1094 dated 29.10.2020 issued by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department were quashed by the court. Further the respondents were directed by the court to calculate the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP and extend the monetary benefits within a period of twelve weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Title : Rabindra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 41

Case No. : W.P. (S) No. 816 of 2021

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV