ORDER : I.A. No. 6944 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 311 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 311 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 6944 of 2018 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 414 of 2018 5. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order/judgment dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 7546 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, order dated 22.09.2012, by which the writ petitioner-respondent has been held not to get the benefit of first Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme as he has already got the benefit of Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and he was held entitled for second A.C.P. w.e.f. 18.11.2001 in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-125-7000/- and third A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the un-revised pay-scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- corresponding to revised pay-scale of Rs. 9300-34,800/- with Grade pay of Rs. 4200/-, has been quashed on the ground that the same has been held to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. The brief facts of the case, which requires to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, reads hereunder as: The writ petitioner-respondent joined his services as Accounts Clerk on 19.11.1977 and was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981. However, he was not granted regular promotion and ultimately the writ petitioner-respondent retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 from the post of Accounts Clerk while posted at National Highway, Road Division, Jamshedpur. 7. Case of the writ petitioner-respondent before the writ Court was that he was granted promotion but it was not a regular one rather by way of Junior Selection Grade granted prior to the year 1983 and as such, he should have been exempted from passing Accounts Examination for the purpose of grant of A.C.P and M.A.C.P. It was case of the writ petitioner-respondent that since the writ petitioner-respondent was getting the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-prior to grant of A.C.P. benefit in the light of pay revision, as such he is entitled for higher respective pay-scale. The writ petitioner-respondent claimed that he is entitled for grant of 1st A.C.P w.e.f. 09.08.1999 in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-; 2nd A.C.P. w.e.f. 18.11.2001 in the pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- and 3rd M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the pay-scale of Rs. 9,300 – 34,800/-(Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-). It was contended before the writ Court that the writ petitioner-respondent although is entitled for benefit of financial up-gradation under A.C.P./M.A.C.P Scheme but the appellants-State of Jharkhand has committed gross illegality in not allowing 1st A.C.P. and further error in giving pay-scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- for 2nd A.C.P w.e.f 18.11.2001 whereas the writ petitioner-respondent was getting the said scale of Rs. 4,500-7000/- from 01.01.1996 itself. It was further case of the writ petitioner-respondent before the writ Court that in view of the clarification dated 08.07.2014, the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled for the benefit of A.C.P. even though the writ petitioner-respondent had not cleared Accounts Examination. It was further contended before the writ Court that in view of earlier notification dated 12.08.1992 those who are granted promotion prior to 01.09.1983, were not required to pass Accounts Examination after 01.09.1983, as such they are entitled to get the benefits of A.C.P in view of said notification/clarification. In support of his case, the writ petitioner-respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2000(4) PLJR 262 . 8. The case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand is that by virtue of Resolution dated 08.07.2014, it was made clear that those clerks can be considered for promotion without clearing the departmental Accounts Examination who had already received promotion on 01.09.1983 or prior to that and those who had received promotion after that cut-off date, such employees were required to pass Accounts Examination. It was case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand before the writ Court that the Resolution dated 08.07.2014 issued vide Memo no. 2308, which is in continuation to letter no. 493 dated 22.02.2007, clearly reflects that those employees who have been promoted prior to 01.09.1983 without passing Accounts Examination, will get further promotion on fulfilling the other specified conditions. It was case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand before the writ Court that the Resolution dated 08.07.2014 issued vide Memo no. 2308, which is in continuation to letter no. 493 dated 22.02.2007, clearly reflects that those employees who have been promoted prior to 01.09.1983 without passing Accounts Examination, will get further promotion on fulfilling the other specified conditions. It was further case of the appellants-State of Jharkhand before the writ Court that the writ petitioner-respondent had got only merger of scale before 01.09.1983 and not any promotion to higher posts, hence the above departmental provision is not valid for the writ petitioner-respondent. 9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has allowed the writ petition by holding the decision dated 22.09.2012 as not tenable in the eyes of law, with a direction to grant 1st A.C.P. to the writ petitioner-respondent on completion of 12 years of his service w.e.f. 09.08.1999, 2nd A.C.P on completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 19.11.2001 and 3rd M.A.C.P on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f. 01.09.2008 in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-8000, Rs. 5,500-9,000 and Rs. 9300-34,800 (Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-) respectively. The appellants-State was further directed to pay differences of salary, other admissible allowances as applicable under revised scale and retirement benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and pension with statutory interest over the dues amount with a further direction that if any amount has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the writ petitioner-respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of that order. 10. The appellants-State has preferred the instant intra-court appeal against the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the difference in between the ‘up-gradation of pay-scale by virtue of grant of Junior Selection Grade’ and the ‘regular promotion’. 10. The appellants-State has preferred the instant intra-court appeal against the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the difference in between the ‘up-gradation of pay-scale by virtue of grant of Junior Selection Grade’ and the ‘regular promotion’. The further ground has been taken that in the impugned judgment, there is reference of judgment of Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court, rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra), in which, pay-scale has been dealt with and it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner-respondent that in pursuance to the parameter fixed in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) the writ petitioner-respondent cannot be held entitled to get the benefit of up-gradation in pay-scale since admittedly he has not passed the departmental Accounts Examination and so far as exemption which has been sought for by the writ petitioner-respondent on the basis of fact that he has been granted promotion prior to 01.09.1983 by virtue of grant of Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.04.1981 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the difference in between ‘up-gradation of pay-scale by virtue of grant of Junior Selection Grade’ and the ‘regular promotion’. According to learned counsel, the eligibility criteria under Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 which requires eligibility to get promotion to the higher grade providing therein the passing of the departmental Accounts Examination and once the eligibility criteria for getting promotion to the higher hierarchy is brought under the rule there cannot be any deviation and so far as the exemption or relaxation from that is concerned the parameter has already been fixed by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) but having not properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law, hence the same may be quashed. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioner-respondent since was granted Junior Selection Grade from 01.04.1981, therefore, his case is coming under the fold of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter the learned Single Judge has passed the order, which may not be interfered with. 12. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, deem it fit and proper to go through the relevant factual aspects, which are admitted by the parties, are hereunder as : The writ petitioner-respondent joined as Accounts Clerk on 19.11.1977 and was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981. During his service career, the writ petitioner-respondent was not granted regular promotion and ultimately the writ petitioner-respondent retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012 from the post of Accounts Clerk while posted at National Highway, Road Division, Jamshedpur. The writ petitioner-respondent is claiming up-gradation in pay-scale even without passing the departmental Accounts Examination on the ground that the writ petitioner-respondent has got Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981, which is prior to 01.08.1983 and as per the policy decision, as has been taken by the State Government vide notification dated 12.08.1992, wherein it has been stipulated that the employees, who have already been granted promotion prior to 01.08.1983 is not required to pass the Accounts Examination and as such the writ petitioner-respondent was not required to pass the Accounts Examination. 13. The writ petitioner-respondent has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra), basing upon which the impugned order has been passed, therefore, this Court, deem it fit and proper to examine the applicability of the judgment referred above in the case at hand. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the question that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court is as to whether clerks working in the Muffasil offices are required to pass the departmental examination in accounts for promotion to selection grades. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the question that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court is as to whether clerks working in the Muffasil offices are required to pass the departmental examination in accounts for promotion to selection grades. The matter fell first for consideration before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Md. Shamsuddin & Ors Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1983 PLJR 347 , wherein the question has been answered in the negative holding that after amalgamation of the posts of Lower Division and Upper Division clerks and creation of new cadre, the clerks are not required to pass the Accounts examination for promotion to the selection grades. It further appears that when some of these cases came up for hearing on 25.02.1994 the correctness of the said decision was doubted and the cases were referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench, before which the cases were placed for hearing, noticed that the point at issue had already been referred to the Full Bench in C.W.J.C No. 989 of 1989 but the aforesaid writ petition was withdrawn by the concerned writ petitioners and thus the cases of the petitioners in C.W.J.C Nos. 2995 of 1990 and analogous cases survived for decision. It further appears from the aforesaid judgment that the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Shamsuddin (supra) has been reversed by laying down the proposition of law that the clerks of the Muffasil offices could/can not be promoted to the selection grade posts without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 01.05.1980 and 29.03.1982. Any promotion due to the clerks during that period, thus, cannot be denied on the ground that they had not passed the said examination. The relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) is reproduced hereunder as: "16. The result of the above discussion is that the clerks of the Muffasil offices could/can not be promoted to the selection grade posts without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 1.5.80 and 29.3.82. The relevant paragraph 16 of the judgment rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) is reproduced hereunder as: "16. The result of the above discussion is that the clerks of the Muffasil offices could/can not be promoted to the selection grade posts without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 1.5.80 and 29.3.82. Any promotion due to the clerks during that period, thus, cannot be denied on the ground that they had not passed the said examination." This Court while going across the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra) has found therefrom that rules relating to examination in accounts, as contained in Rule 157 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 has been dealt with at paragraph 4. For ready reference, paragraph 4 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder as: "4. The rules relating to examination in accounts are contained in Rule 157 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules, and the relevant provisions requiring the clerks to pass the examination as condition for his confirmation and promotion is contained in clause (J) of sub-rule (3) thereof. The said clause has undergone changes from time to time, and having regard to its importance it would be useful to quote the clause as it stood at different times in ex-tenso. The said clause has undergone changes from time to time, and having regard to its importance it would be useful to quote the clause as it stood at different times in ex-tenso. The rule/clause, as it originally stood in the Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1947 (as the Rules were earlier called) was as under: "No clerk who has not passed the preliminary examination will be allowed to cross the efficiency bar and no clerk who has not passed the final examination will be appointed in the Upper Division." The rule was amended by correction slip no.5 dated 14.3.63 and correction slip no.6 dated 23.8.63 and so amended, it reads as under:- "No clerk who has not passed the preliminary examination will be allowed to cross the efficiency bar and no clerk who has not passed the final examination will be appointed in the Upper Division." When no clerk having passed the final examination in accounts is available to fill up any Upper Division post, the U.D. post may be kept in abeyance and a clerk in the Lower Division employed against it until a clerk having passed the final examination is available again when the Upper Division post should be revived." The rule was again amended vide correction slip no.30 dated 29.3.82. The English text of the said amended rule is not available in the records. As English text of the rule in its earlier forms has been quoted, I would give a translation of the Hindi text as under :- It will be essential for the clerks to pass the preliminary examination in accounts for crossing the Efficiency Bar or confirmation and the final examination in accounts for promotion to the selection grade. When no clerk having passed the final examination in accounts is available to fill up any selection grade post, then the Selection Grade post may be kept in abeyance and a senior clerk may be kept on that post in his scale by the appointing authority until a clerk having passed the final examination is available. On such examination pass clerk becoming available he may be confirmed in the selection grade post. On such examination pass clerk becoming available he may be confirmed in the selection grade post. The clause was amended yet again, this time under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, vide Statutory Order 431 dated 29.4.85 as under:- "(a) Any clerk, who has not passed the preliminary examination in Accounts, will be neither confirmed nor be allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (b) A clerk, who has not passed the final examination, will not be promoted to the Selection Grade; (c) In case of non-availability of senior clerk, finally passed in Accounts Examination, any junior clerk, having passed the final Accounts Examination may be temporarily promoted to the Selection Grade : Provided that the junior clerk temporarily promoted to the Selection Grade shall be reverted to the post of clerk if the clerk senior to him passes the final Accounts examination within two years from the date of his first supersession and is promoted with effect from any date within the said two years, otherwise the senior clerk would be treated junior to all the clerks promoted to the Selection Grade prior to him. Explanation. --- Under proviso to (c), the date of passing the examination of Accounts would be the date on which the examination was held and the post of selection grade held by the junior clerk shall be deemed to be vacant from that very date for the purpose of promoting senior clerk. But, for the fixation of pay etc. the junior clerk shall be deemed to have been reverted from the date with effect from which the senior clerk will be promoted. The seniority of the reverted junior clerk shall be effective from the date on which he will again be promoted permanently to the Selection grade." 14. It also requires to refer herein the judgment rendered in the case of Lalit Mohan Deb & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in (1973) 3 SCC 862 , wherein the question fell for consideration about parity in the selection grade vis-a-vis regular promotion. For ready reference, paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder as: "7. Mr Sen on the behalf of the appellants did not challenge the right of the Administration to have two scales of pay in the same category of posts. Provision of a selection grade in the same category of posts is not a new thing. For ready reference, paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder as: "7. Mr Sen on the behalf of the appellants did not challenge the right of the Administration to have two scales of pay in the same category of posts. Provision of a selection grade in the same category of posts is not a new thing. This has been recognised by the Central Pay Commission in para 10 of Chapter X of the Report. The Commission observed “with the object of providing incentive to employees who have no outlets or very limited outlets for promotion to higher posts, we are recommending in a number of cases that a certain percentage of the posts in the grade — usually 10 per cent — should carry a somewhat higher scale of pay even though there will be no change in the duties. Following the terminology in vogue we have described these posts as selection grade posts”. It is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotions should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale. Selection grades are, therefore, created in the interest of greater efficiency. In the present case it is explained in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Administration that the basis for selection of some of the Assistants to the higher scale is seniority-cum-merit which is one of the two or three princples of promotion widely accepted in the Administration and duly recognised by the Pay Commission in Chapter XXXXV of the Report. Mr Sen was therefore, quite right in not challenging the right of the Administration to create a selection grade in the category of Assistants." (Own emphasis) From the above proposition of law, it is evident that the promotional post is a higher post with a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotions should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotions should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale. 15. This Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is falling in the ratio by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra), as has been laid down in the said judgment at paragraph 16, as quoted herein above, that the clerks of the Muffasil offices could/can not be promoted to the selection grade posts without passing final examination in Accounts except during the period between 01.05.80 and 29.03.1982. Any promotion due to the clerks during that period, thus, cannot be denied on the ground that they had not passed the said examination. 16. Admittedly, herein the writ petitioner-respondent was appointed as Accounts clerk on 19.11.1977 and was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981. The writ petitioner-respondent is claiming the benefit of up-gradation even without passing the Accounts Examination on the ground that he has been granted Junior Selection Grade prior to 01.09.1983 and as per notification dated 12.08.1992, those who are granted promotion prior to 01.09.1983 were not required to pass Accounts Examination. 17. We have also considered the notification dated 12.08.1992, as has been referred in the notification of the State of Jharkhand dated 22.02.2007 wherein it has been decided that the promotion can be granted to the higher post even without passing the departmental Accounts Examination, if one or the other employees have got promotion prior to 01.09.1983. Admittedly, herein the writ petitioner-respondent has not passed the departmental Accounts Examination, however, he is seeking exemption from passing departmental Accounts Examination on the ground that he was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981 prior to 01.09.1983, as such he is coming under the fold of notification dated 12.08.1992. 18. Admittedly, herein the writ petitioner-respondent has not passed the departmental Accounts Examination, however, he is seeking exemption from passing departmental Accounts Examination on the ground that he was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981 prior to 01.09.1983, as such he is coming under the fold of notification dated 12.08.1992. 18. But the question herein is that if the Junior Selection Grade would be treated to be a regular promotion then certainly the writ petitioner-respondent would be held entitled to get the benefit even without passing departmental Accounts Examination but as has been laid down in the case of Lalit Mohan Deb (supra) there is difference in between Junior Selection Grade and regular promotion, therefore, this Court is of the view that even though the writ petitioner-respondent was granted Junior Selection Grade on 01.04.1981, he should not be considered for getting the benefit of up-gradation without passing the departmental Accounts Examination as because he is not coming under the fold of notification dated 12.08.1992. 19. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that either for up-gradation in pay-scale or regular promotion, the eligibility to get the benefit of up-gradation in pay-scale is required to be followed first in the case of consideration at the time of regular promotion. Since herein the Rule 157 (3) (J) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 stipulates a provision of passing of the departmental Accounts Examination and the same has been dealt with by carving out an exemption to consider the case of such employees who have not passed the departmental Accounts Examination except during the period between 01.05.1980 and 29.03.1982, by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (supra) as would appear from the discussions made at paragraph 14 thereof, which reads hereunder as : "14. The above discussion, however, covers the period between 29.3.82 and 29.4.85. So far as the period between 1.5.80 and 29.3.82 is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the petitioners that after amalgamation of the posts of L.D. and U.D. clerks, in the absence of any provision requiring the clerks to pass Accounts examination for promotion to selection grade, and the erstwhile provision having become redundant or otiose, the promotion could not be denied to them on account of non-passing of the Accounts examination during that period. The amendment dated 29.3.82 was result of administrative instruction and could not have any retrospective effect. To that extent, I would also endorse the decision of this Court in Shamsuddin's case." According to our considered view, the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is not falling under the aforesaid exception. 20. This Court, therefore, on the basis of detailed discussions made herein above, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts in right prospective and even though the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna High Court rendered in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (Supra), has been referred but without dealing with the reasons as to how this judgment is in the aid of the writ petitioner-respondent, the other direction has been passed in favour of writ petitioner, by allowing the writ petition, which according to us is not applicable in the case of writ petitioner-respondent, as per the discussion made above. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 21. In the result, the intra-court appeal stands allowed, in consequence thereof writ petition stands dismissed. 22. Consequent upon the disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 6943 of 2018 stands disposed of.