JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Since in both the writ applications common question of facts and law are involved hence, with the consent of the respective parties, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 2. In W.P. (S) No. 4573 of 2016, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the recovery notice dated 30.06.2016, whereby the petitioner is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 2,44,063 as per Officer Order dated 5.12.2015 in view of objection made by District Account Officer vide letter dated 24.06.2016; and further for quashing letter dated 28.03.2014 whereby, it is informed that 2nd MACP granted to the petitioner cannot be confirmed on the ground of non-passing of Departmental Examination required for grant of 2nd MACP; and also for direction upon the respondents, in particular respondent no.2 to confirm the 2nd MACP given to the petitioner vide office order dated 21.12.2011. 3. The facts, as delineated in W.P. (S) No. 4573 of 2016 is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of stenographer vide order dated 20.12.21986 in Civil Court, Hazaribagh and thereafter vide order dated 26.09.1989 transferred to Civil Court, Chatra. While continuing as such, vide order dated 29.07.2004 the petitioner was granted 1st ACP w.e.f 09.08.1999 on completion of 12 years of service, which was subsequently confirmed by respondent vide memo dated 21.01.2013. It has further been averred that by passage of time, ACP scheme was replaced by Modified ACP Scheme (MACP) under which, a government servant who has not been given any regular promotion is entitled for three financial up-gradations i.e. 1st/2nd/3rd MACP on completion of 10/20/30 years of service and was made applicable w.e.f 01.09.2008. Since the petitioner has completed more than 20 years of service prior to 01.09.2008 i.e. on 02.01.2007, his case was considered for 2nd MACP by the Screening Committee and 2nd MACP was granted to him vide order dated 21.12.2011 w.e.f 01.09.2008. Thereafter, his service book was sent for confirmation of 2nd MACP to Law Department but the same was returned with a query that in the service book there is no mention about passing of super time scale examination required for grant of 2nd MACP to stenographer, for which, the petitioner represented before respondent no. Thereafter, his service book was sent for confirmation of 2nd MACP to Law Department but the same was returned with a query that in the service book there is no mention about passing of super time scale examination required for grant of 2nd MACP to stenographer, for which, the petitioner represented before respondent no. 3 stating that he has passed all departmental examination conducted by the department and no examination is required for grant of 2nd MACP. After verifying his statement, the service book of the petitioner was again sent to Law Department for confirmation with an endorsement that during relevant period of time, no departmental examination was conducted. Pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 28.03.2014, which is impugned in this writ application, respondent no. 4 intimated respondent no. 3 that 2nd MACP given to the petitioner cannot be confirmed as petitioner has not passed required departmental examination in view of Finance Department Resolution dated 01.09.2008 and law Department letter dated 20.02.2014. 4. It has further been averred that it is Law Department, which vide order dated 26.07.2010 has categorically stated that non-passing of departmental examination is no bar for grant of benefits of ACP/MACP in case of non-examination in the judgeship. Further, pursuant to order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.03.2015 passed in I.A. No. 297 of 2012 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989, the Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand vide letter dated 18.8.2015 decided to implement the recommendation of Shetty Commission with respect to Class III and Class IV employees. Accordingly, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chatra directed the Accountant to release the arrears of salary/allowances to individual staffs. Thereafter, the service book of the petitioner was sent for confirmation to the District Accounts Officer, Chatra who vide letter dated 24.06.2016 raised two objections – (I).Previously on 31.03.2003 petitioner was entitled for basic pay of Rs. 5900/- and after grant of advance increment basic pay of the petitioner on 01.04.2003 would be Rs. 6050/- and (ii). Law department has not approved the 2nd MACP given to the petitioner and accordingly he returned the service book for removal of defects. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was served recovery notice dated 30.06.2016 asking for refund of Rs. 2,44,063/-, which is also impugned in this writ application. 5. 6050/- and (ii). Law department has not approved the 2nd MACP given to the petitioner and accordingly he returned the service book for removal of defects. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was served recovery notice dated 30.06.2016 asking for refund of Rs. 2,44,063/-, which is also impugned in this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P. (S) No. 4573 of 2016 submitted with vehemence that petitioner has passed all the departmental examination conducted by the department, however no such examination, as required for grant of 2nd MACP, was ever conducted till due date by the Department; as such there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear in any such examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Law Department, which is guiding department, vide its letter dated 26.07.2010 has unequivocally stated that non-passing of departmental examination is no bar for grant of benefits of ACP/MACP in case of non-holding of such examination. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondents-authorities that the petitioner at any point of time has misrepresented the department or played fraud in getting the ACP/MACP, as such as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court no recovery can be made. Even otherwise also, the impugned notice of recovery has been issued without following the cardinal principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing order or recovery. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though second MACP was granted to the petitioner but it was subject to confirmation by law department and the Law Department did not confirm the same due to non-passing of required examination. Further, in the light of order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to implementation of Shetty Commission benefit of one increment was given to all employees concerned including the petitioner but thereupon objection was raised by respondent no. 7, consequent thereupon order of recovery was passed which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 7, consequent thereupon order of recovery was passed which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 2 and 4, in which, it is averred that Finance Department, State of Jharkhand vide Sankalp No. 1779/V dated 21.05.2014 has abolished the process of confirmation of MACP/ACP of Civil Court employees by law department and now MACP/ACP of Civil Court employees is within the exclusive domain of Head of the concerned Judgeship. 8. In W.P. (S) No. 3562 of 2014, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 11.03.2014, by which, claim of the petitioner for extending benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination; and for direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioner the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP from the date on which the petitioner is entitled to. 9. The facts, as delineated in W.P. (S) No. 3562 of 2014 is that the petitioner initially joined the service as Assistant in Civil Courts, Ranchi on 19.02.1975. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service on 06.12.2004 under Rule 74 (b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (S) No. 6910 of 2004 and the same was disposed of as withdrawn with certain observations. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner represented before the Department by filing representation to grant him retirement benefit by fixing the same after granting the due ACP's benefits but retirement benefits and pension were fixed at the rate of last salary drawn. Accordingly, the Registrar, Civil Court, Ranchi on 21.06.2011 sent the service book of the petitioner to Secretary, Department of Law recommending his entitlement of 1st and 2nd ACP due from 09.08.1999 but the same was denied on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examination and communication to this effect was made by Law Department to Registrar, Civil Courts, Ranchi vide letter dated 11.03.2014, which is impugned in this writ application. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled for 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP, the only ground for denial of such benefit is non-passing of departmental examination. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled for 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP, the only ground for denial of such benefit is non-passing of departmental examination. In this regard, it has been submitted that in service tenure of petitioner only once departmental examination has been held and sufficient opportunity has not been afforded. Even otherwise also, persons junior to him has been extended such benefit and petitioner has been denied such benefit and such denial of claim of the petitioner is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Bisheshwar Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in (2003) 4 PLJR 623 . In the same array of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision rendered in the case of K.K. Gohil vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. as reported in (2015) 9 SCC 652 in particular, paragraph 13, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that getting higher pay scales a departmental examination is necessary then in such cases it is equally necessary that the departmental examination should be organized in time. For ready reference, relevant portion of paragraph 13 is quoted herein below: “13. However, by Circular dated 24.11.2004, the Government of Gujarat modified the earlier resolution taking note of the High Court's order and directed that in such cases, it is equally necessary that the departmental examination should be organised in time. Further by Government Order dated 22.6.2006, it was specifically brought to the notice of the Department that if the higher departmental examination is not organised during the eligibility period for getting the higher pay scales then in such cases the higher pay scale benefit cannot be stalled on such ground. ….” 11. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and 4 submitted that it is not the case where no departmental examination was held rather once departmental examination was held on 22.01.1984. 12. ….” 11. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and 4 submitted that it is not the case where no departmental examination was held rather once departmental examination was held on 22.01.1984. 12. From the pleadings available on record, in particular letter dated 23.02.2013, (in WPS No. 4573 of 2016) which is a communication made by Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chatra to Law Secretary, Department of Law, Ranchi it is evident that no examination was held in between the period of grant of 1st ACP to 2nd ACP, hence for no fault of the petitioner, he can be made to suffer. In W.P. (S) No. 3562 of 2014, admittedly one time examination was held and thereafter at long interval of time, no examination was held. Furthermore, neither in the counter affidavit nor pleadings to this effect has been made to what persuaded the respondents in not holding such examination for such a long period of time. In this regard, it is well settled principle of law, as per the law laid down in Bisheshwar Thakur (Supra) that 'rules are not framed to be used as a hangman's rope to deny benefit to the government servant rather the rules are framed to run the government properly and for proper governance. If the department has not conducted examination for such a long period, then it must introspect themselves and should not find foul flies somewhere which is creating all these problems. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.K. Gohil (Supra) has unequivocally enunciated that 'getting higher pay scales a departmental examination is necessary then in such cases it is equally necessary that the departmental examination should be organized in time. 'Even otherwise also, the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 3562 of 2014 has retired from the services of the respondents, hence there was no occasion for him to appear in any departmental examination, if any occasion would have arisen. 'Even otherwise also, the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 3562 of 2014 has retired from the services of the respondents, hence there was no occasion for him to appear in any departmental examination, if any occasion would have arisen. From the counter affidavit filed by respondent-State in WPS No. 4573 of 2016, it further appears that the Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand vide Sankalp No. 1779/V dated 21.05.2014 has abolished the process of confirmation of MACP/ACP of Civil Court employees by law department and now MACP/ACP of Civil Court employees is within the exclusive domain of Head of the concerned Judgeship and the Judgeship concerned has fairly admitted that no departmental examination was conducted in the period concerned so far W.P. (S) No. 4573 of 2016 is concerned. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders impugned in the writ applications are hereby quashed and set aside and in view of letter/Sankalp dated 21.05.2014 of the Department of Finance, the respondent no. 3, who is stated to be competent to take decision of confirmation of MACP, is directed to extend the benefit as claimed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ applications stand allowed.