Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2008 (JHR)

Bishwanath Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-04

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents for granting the benefits of Assured Career Progression (for short “ACP”) as well as Modified Assured Career Progression (for short “MACP”) from the date the petitioner was entitled for. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Typist under the respondent-Department on 26.09.1972. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.09.1981, the petitioner was posted as Steno-Typist, however, no financial benefit was given to him. The petitioner continued to work in the said post and was given only annual increments in his pay-scale. It is the further case of the petitioner that after coming of the resolution regarding benefits of ACP of the employees of State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was given the benefits of 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP w.e.f. 08.10.2005. However, the benefits of 1st ACP which was granted w.e.f. 09.08.1999 was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that earlier the petitioner was granted regular promotion on 08.09.1981 and thus, was not entitled for the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per the policy decision of the State Govt. and the Rules floated for granting the benefits of ACP as well as MACP, the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP on completion of 12 years and 24 years of services from the date of his initial appointment or 09.08.1999 whichever falls later. As the case of the petitioner was not considered for grant of ACP and the same was considered wrongly, he represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to his representation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 1199 of 2013 and this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the claim raised by the petitioner and a liberty was reserved with the petitioner to produce all other documents on which he intend to rely. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(S). No. 1199 of 2013 and this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the claim raised by the petitioner and a liberty was reserved with the petitioner to produce all other documents on which he intend to rely. In view of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.01.2014, the respondents have come out with a reasoned order on 10.03.2014/ 20.03.2014, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that petitioner was given a regular promotion on the post of Steno-Typist and as such, he is not entitled for the benefits of ACP from 09.08.1999 and was only entitled for the benefits of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 08.09.2005 and regarding 3rd MACP, it has been held in the impugned order that as the petitioner has superannuated on 31.10.2010 and the benefits of 3rd MACP would fall for consideration on 08.09.2011 i.e. after his retirement, his case for consideration of 3rd MACP was rejected. Petitioner has thrown challenge to the impugned order dated 10.03.2014/ 20.03.2014 in the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Amit Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents have wrongly calculated the benefits of ACP and MACP. Learned counsel further argues that admittedly the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as per the Scheme floated by the Central Govt. which was made effective for consideration of the employees of Jharkhand from 09.08.1999 and the actual benefits from the date State of Jharkhand came into existence i.e. from 15.11.2000 and the benefits were to be given from 2002, as per the policy decision. Learned counsel argues that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and the benefits of 2nd ACP on completion of 24 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is also entitled for the benefits of 3rd MACP from the date, the same came into existence in the State of Jharkhand and from the date of its policy decision i.e. 01.09.2008, as the petitioner was very much in the service on the said date. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is also entitled for the benefits of 3rd MACP from the date, the same came into existence in the State of Jharkhand and from the date of its policy decision i.e. 01.09.2008, as the petitioner was very much in the service on the said date. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Chaitali Chaterjee Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, draws the attention of the Court towards para-7 onwards of the counter-affidavit and argues that already the benefits which accrued to the petitioner has been granted to him and as the petitioner was not entitled for the benefits of 1st ACP as he was granted regular promotion to the post of Steno-Typist, rightly it was withdrawn. Learned counsel further argues that the benefits of 2nd ACP was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 08.09.2005 and so far benefits of 3rd MACP is concerned, as the petitioner was superannuated on 31.10.2010 and the benefits of 3rd MACP would fall for consideration on 08.09.2011 i.e. after his retirement, hence it was not considered. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. It is settled principles of law and as per the Rules of ACP as well as MACP, the employees of the State of Jharkhand are entitled for the benefits of the same from the date the ACP Rules came into existence i.e. 09.08.1999 but the actual benefits were to be granted from the date the State of Jharkhand came into existence i.e. 15.11.2000 and further the monitory benefits were to be granted from the year 2002, as accepted by the policy decision of the State of Jharkhand and as such, petitioner was entitled for the benefits of ACP from the date of his initial appointment on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service. The petitioner was also entitled for the benefits of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. The petitioner was also entitled for the benefits of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service from the date of his initial appointment. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was considered and granted regular promotion to the post of Steno-Typist on 07.09.1981, is not acceptable by this Court as no documents have been brought on record which could show that the petitioner has been considered and granted regular promotion to the said post. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2014/20.03.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The case of the petitioner is remanded back to the respondent-authorities to taking decision for granting the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP as well as 3rd MACP from the date of entitlement i.e. counting the length of service from the date of initial appointment. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this and the actual benefits which accrued to the petitioner shall be given to him within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.