Case Background
The petitioner was an employee under the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. He had been granted financial progression under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) with effect from 27.02.2012.
On 24.08.2017, the Chief Engineer, Water Flood Control and Water Drainage, Birpur (respondent no. 3) issued an order bearing memo no. 2351. By this order, the financial progression earlier granted to the petitioner under ACPS was cancelled with retrospective effect from 27.02.2012, so far as it related to him.
Following this, on 27.11.2017, the Superintending Engineer, Kosi Barrage Circle, Birpur (respondent no. 4) issued a consequential order implementing the cancellation of ACP benefits.
Aggrieved by these two orders, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction in 2018. He sought quashing of the memo dated 24.08.2017 and the subsequent order dated 27.11.2017.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition came up before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman. The Court heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State on 06.11.2023.
The main complaint of the petitioner was that his financial progression under the ACPS had been taken away only because he had allegedly not passed the prescribed departmental examination. He submitted that this issue of denying or cancelling ACP benefits on such a ground was no longer open, as it had already been settled by Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel relied particularly on the Division Bench judgment in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Krishna Singh & Anr., reported in 2022 (2) PLJR 773. According to him, this decision clearly held that denial of ACP benefits on the ground of non‑passing of accounts or departmental examinations was not justified.
To show how this legal position had developed, the petitioner also placed reliance, through the judgment itself, on another Division Bench decision in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Smt. Jivachi Devi, reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471. In that case, the Division Bench had held that the employees were entitled to ACP benefits and rejected the State’s objection about non‑passing of accounts or departmental examinations.
The judgment records that the State of Bihar challenged the Jivachi Devi decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 782 of 2022, titled State of Bihar and Ors. v. Jivachi Devi. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 14.02.2022. This meant that the legal view taken by the Division Bench in Jivachi Devi remained undisturbed.
In the present case, the petitioner argued that since the cancellation of his ACP was based solely on non‑passing of the departmental examination, the impugned action was contrary to the settled law declared in these Division Bench decisions.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel took a different stand. He contended that the judgments relied on by the petitioner were delivered after the Chief Engineer’s decision dated 24.08.2017 to cancel the petitioner’s ACPS benefits. Therefore, according to the State, those later decisions would not govern or apply to the petitioner’s case.
The Court carefully considered this objection from the State. It noted that the Division Bench in Sri Krishna Singh had not acted in isolation. Instead, that Bench had examined and applied the legal principles laid down by earlier Division Benches, starting from the case of State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 643, and also in several other cases.
On this basis, the Court highlighted that the legal rule against denying financial progression for non‑passing of departmental or accounts examinations was already in place from 2013 itself. The later Division Bench decisions had only followed and reaffirmed this earlier law.
Therefore, the Court held that the State’s contention, that the decisions cited were subsequent to the Chief Engineer’s order, had no merit. Since the foundational Division Bench decision in Anjani Kumar dated back to 2013, the settled legal position clearly existed much before the impugned order of 24.08.2017.
The Court further examined the reasoning in the line of Division Bench cases, as referred to in Sri Krishna Singh. It recorded that those Benches had consistently held that refusing benefits of financial progression under ACP schemes only on the basis of non‑passing of departmental or accounts examinations was unjustified. In other words, such a ground alone could not be used to deny or take away ACP benefits.
In this light, the Court concluded that respondent no. 3 had cancelled the petitioner’s ACP earlier granted to him solely on the ground of non‑passing of departmental examination. Since the legal position declared by Division Benches was that such a ground could not justify denial of ACP benefits, the cancellation order was clearly unsustainable.
Besides the case law, the Court also took note of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011. It specifically quoted Clause 4.C(1) of this Policy. This provision states that a large number of cases fall into the category of “similar cases”. It requires each government department to consider and settle the claim of an employee or citizen at the departmental level itself, if the claim is found covered by any court decision.
Clause 4.C(1) further indicates that many such service matters can be disposed of by the department without compelling the concerned person to come to court. Following such an approach would make government departments function as “efficient litigants”.
By invoking this Policy, the Court implicitly criticised the State’s approach in the present case. Despite clear court decisions on the same issue, the department had not resolved the matter itself. Instead, it forced the petitioner to litigate, contrary to the spirit of the State Litigation Policy.
After reviewing the facts, the case law and the litigation policy, the Court held that there was no justification for cancelling the financial progression already granted to the petitioner under the ACPS. The impugned order dated 24.08.2017 issued by the Chief Engineer, as far as it related to the petitioner, was quashed.
Because the subsequent order dated 27.11.2017 issued by the Superintending Engineer was only a consequential step based on the earlier cancellation, it too could not stand once the main order was set aside. The Court therefore also quashed the consequential order dated 27.11.2017.
Finally, the Court directed that the petitioner must be paid all due and admissible benefits arising from restoration of the ACP. The department was ordered to prepare a calculation chart clearly showing how the amount had been worked out. This exercise, along with payment, was to be completed within eight weeks from the date the order was received or produced before the concerned authority.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for government employees in Bihar who have been denied or had their ACP benefits cancelled merely because they did not clear a departmental or accounts examination.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that such a ground, by itself, is not sufficient to refuse financial progression under the ACP scheme, where Division Benches have already settled the law.
The judgment also underlines that government departments are expected to follow previous court decisions and the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011. Employees whose facts match decided cases should not be forced to file writ petitions to get their lawful dues.
In practical terms, departments dealing with ACP and similar benefits must review their orders and ensure that they are not cancelling or withholding financial progression for reasons already declared invalid by the courts.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the department cancel the petitioner’s financial progression under the Assured Career Progression Scheme solely on the ground that he had not passed the departmental examination?
Answer: No. Relying on prior Division Bench decisions, the Patna High Court held that refusing or cancelling ACP benefits on the ground of non‑passing of departmental or accounts examinations is unjustified, and accordingly quashed the cancellation orders. - Issue: Does the later timing of Division Bench judgments prevent their application to an earlier departmental order?
Answer: No. The Court held that the core legal principle had already been laid down by Division Benches as early as 2013, well before the impugned order of 2017, and therefore the State’s objection on this ground was without substance.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. v. Sri Krishna Singh & Anr., 2022 (2) PLJR 773.
- State of Bihar & Ors. v. Smt. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471.
- State of Bihar and Ors. v. Jivachi Devi, SLP No. 782 of 2022, order dated 14.02.2022 (Hon’ble Supreme Court, dismissal of SLP).
- State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, 2013 (2) PLJR 643.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2012 of 2018
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 256
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Date of Judgment: 06.11.2023
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State – Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to G.A.-2.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service matter relating to cancellation of financial progression under Assured Career Progression Scheme).
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMjAxMiMyMDE4IzEjTg==-7RRhtYAd8ps=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
