The Court held that passing basic training exams is not a condition for getting ACP/MACP in Bihar Police.
It also ruled that no recovery can be made from his pension for alleged excess payment.
The State must now restore all ACP/MACP benefits from the due dates within four weeks.
Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as a General Constable in the Rohtas District Police Force on 06.03.1983. Later, he was transferred to the Jamui District Force as a Driver Constable.
He appeared in the basic training examination on 26.11.1984. He failed in the law paper but subsequently cleared the exam. Despite this earlier failure, the competent authority granted him first ACP on 09.08.1999, second MACP on 12.03.2009 and third MACP on 12.03.2019.
On 22.07.2021, the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, issued a memo sending the petitioner and others, who had not cleared basic training examination, to appear in a supplementary training examination at Primary School, Nath Nagar. The petitioner appeared and was declared to have passed the supplementary examination on 08.02.2022.
The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2023.
After his retirement, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, issued Memo No. 2470 dated 24.04.2023. By this memo, the DIG cancelled the petitioner’s earlier 1st ACP, 2nd MACP and 3rd MACP and stated that he would be entitled to 1st ACP only from 08.02.2022, the date he cleared the supplementary basic training examination.
Following this, the Superintendent of Police, Jamui, passed a consequential order dated 28.04.2023 (Jamui Jiladesh No. 508/2023), formally withdrawing and rescinding the three benefits and re-fixing his entitlement from 08.02.2022.
The petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8063 of 2023. He challenged both the DIG’s memo dated 24.04.2023 and the SP’s order dated 28.04.2023. He also challenged fixing his date of confirmation as 08.02.2022 and sought its correction to 06.03.1983. Further, he requested a declaration that no recovery should be made from him, as he was not responsible for the delayed passing of the supplementary examination.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The case was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah. The Court first recorded the reliefs sought. The petitioner wanted quashing of the post-retirement orders cancelling his ACP and MACP benefits, correction of his date of confirmation, and protection from any recovery.
The petitioner’s main argument was that there is no rule or regulation in the Bihar Police that makes passing the basic training examination a pre-condition for grant of ACP/MACP benefits. ACP (Assured Career Progression) and MACP (Modified Assured Career Progression) are financial upgradations given to employees who do not get regular promotions within a set period. They are time-bound benefits, not actual promotions to a higher post.
His counsel submitted that the law on this point is already settled. He relied on a series of decisions. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ram Subhag Singh (LPA No. 4 of 2021), reported in 2022 (2) PLJR 773, had held that non-passing of departmental examination cannot be an impediment for time-bound promotions/ACP/MACP.
He further pointed to State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Anjani Kumar, reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 643, where this Court had taken the same view. The Supreme Court had upheld that judgment by order dated 10.03.2014 in SLP (C) No. 19182 of 2013.
The petitioner relied on another Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471. The Supreme Court had also effectively approved that decision by dismissing the State’s Special Leave Petition.
He also referred to The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shri Krishna Singh & Anr. (L.P.A. No. 372 of 2019) and, importantly, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2023(2) PLJR (SC) 423.
In Amresh Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of ACP, which is purely monetary and does not actually promote an employee to a higher post, cannot be denied for want of additional educational qualifications. For ACP/MACP, passing any exam is not necessary. The petitioner argued that the same principle applied to departmental or basic training examinations.
On the recovery issue, the petitioner’s counsel argued that he was a retired employee. Any excess payment was not due to his misrepresentation or fraud. Therefore, no recovery could be made from his pension or post-retirement dues. He cited two Supreme Court judgments: State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 536. Both decisions protect retired or low-paid employees from recovery of amounts wrongly paid due to the employer’s own mistake.
On the other side, the State filed a supplementary counter affidavit. The State relied on Police Order No. 268/99. At internal page 6 of this order, it was mentioned that it is extremely necessary for police personnel to have knowledge of certain subjects. On this basis, the State argued that since the petitioner had not passed the basic training examination, he should not have been given benefits under the ACP/MACP scheme in the first place. Therefore, the post-retirement cancellation was justified.
Earlier, on 28.11.2023, the Court had granted time to the State to place on record any scheme clearly showing that passing the basic training exam, especially the law paper, was a condition for ACP/MACP. The Court was very specific: it wanted to see a rule that directly stated that non-passing of the basic training exam would dis-entitle a person from ACP/MACP benefits.
When final hearing took place, the Court examined Police Order No. 268/99 produced by the State. The Court noted that though the order spoke about the necessity of knowledge of certain subjects, it did not say anywhere that passing the basic training examination, particularly the law paper, was a condition precedent for ACP/MACP benefits.
On this basis, the Court concluded that the State had failed to show any rule making the basic training exam mandatory for ACP/MACP. Without such a rule, the authorities could not deny or cancel ACP/MACP benefits merely because the petitioner had passed the exam late.
The Court then referred to the line of precedents cited by the petitioner. It held that the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in Amresh Kumar Singh and by the Division Bench judgments in Ram Subhag Singh, Anjani Kumar, Smt. Jivachi Devi and Shri Krishna Singh & Anr., some of which stand affirmed by the Supreme Court. All these decisions make it clear that time-bound financial upgradations like ACP/MACP cannot be withheld for not passing departmental or educational examinations.
The Court also dealt with the question of recovery. It reiterated the settled principle that no recovery can be made from a person who has already retired, when the excess payment is due to the authorities’ own negligence or delay and not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. It held that in the present case, there was neither misrepresentation nor fraud by the petitioner. If any excess salary had been paid, it was solely on account of laches and negligence on the part of the respondent authorities themselves.
This aspect, the Court observed, is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgments in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel. Both decisions prevent the Government from recovering such amounts from retired employees or employees on the verge of retirement.
After considering all these factors, the Court held that the two impugned orders dated 24.04.2023 (by the DIG, Munger Range) and 28.04.2023 (by the SP, Jamui) were “perverse and contrary to law”. It therefore quashed both orders.
The Court directed the respondent authorities to grant the petitioner the benefits of ACP/MACP from the due dates, without being blocked by the fact that he had not passed the basic training exam in time. This exercise must be completed within four weeks from receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for many police personnel and other government employees in Bihar who have not cleared some departmental or basic training exams on time, but who have served for long years without promotion.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that ACP and MACP are financial benefits linked to years of service, not academic performance. Unless there is a clear rule, the Government cannot suddenly say, after many years, that an old training exam failure will wipe out a lifetime of service benefits.
The ruling also protects retired employees from financial hardship. When the employer itself mistakenly grants benefits and then tries to recover money after retirement, the Court has reminded that such recovery is illegal if there is no fraud or cheating by the employee.
In short, the judgment strengthens the position of long-serving, lower-rank employees who depend heavily on ACP/MACP amounts and pension to support themselves after retirement.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can Bihar Police cancel ACP/MACP benefits and refix the entitlement date only from the date an employee passes the basic training examination?
Answer: No. The Court held there is no rule making passing the basic training exam a condition precedent for ACP/MACP and, in light of binding precedents, departmental exams cannot be treated as a bar to time-bound ACP/MACP benefits. - Issue: Can the State recover alleged excess payments of ACP/MACP from a retired police constable when he did not misrepresent or commit fraud?
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that no recovery can be made from a retired employee where excess payment is due to the employer’s own negligence and not to any wrongdoing by the employee. - Issue: Are the post-retirement orders dated 24.04.2023 and 28.04.2023 withdrawing ACP/MACP benefits valid?
Answer: No. The Court found these orders perverse and contrary to law, quashed them, and directed restoration of ACP/MACP benefits from the due dates.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ram Subhag Singh, 2022 (2) PLJR 773 (Patna High Court, Division Bench).
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Anjani Kumar, 2013 (2) PLJR 643, affirmed by Supreme Court order dated 10.03.2014 in SLP (C) No. 19182 of 2013.
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471, with State’s SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Shri Krishna Singh & Anr., L.P.A. No. 372 of 2019 (Patna High Court, Division Bench).
- Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2023(2) PLJR (SC) 423 (Supreme Court).
- State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 (Supreme Court).
- Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 536 (Supreme Court).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8063 of 2023
Case Title: Raj Kumar Jha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 427
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 01.04.2024
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. K. Verma (AAG-3); Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging post-retirement orders cancelling ACP/MACP benefits and seeking protection from recovery.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court official judgment link
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.
