Patna High Court Orders Grant of ACP/MACP Benefits Without Mandatory Departmental Exam for Retired Government Employee (2021)

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in its oral judgment dated 13 April 2021, directed the State authorities to grant Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits to a retired clerk, even though he had not passed the departmental examination. The Court relied on settled law that employees above 50 years of age are exempted from such examinations for financial upgradation.

The petitioner had served the Bihar government for nearly 36 years. He was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the District Adult Education Office, Bhagalpur, on 22 April 1985, and later transferred to different departments. He retired as Clerk-cum-Typist in the Office of the Child Development Project Officer, Ujiyarpur (Samastipur), on 31 March 2021.

His grievance was that despite long service, he was not given ACP/MACP benefits because he had not passed the departmental accounts examination. According to a 1992 resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, State employees above the age of 50 are exempt from passing departmental exams for the purpose of promotion and financial progression.

The petitioner therefore requested the Court to direct the authorities to grant him ACP/MACP benefits from the due date with all consequential benefits.

The State’s counsel opposed the plea, but admitted that the issue had already been conclusively settled by multiple Division Bench judgments of the Patna High Court, including the landmark case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Smt. Jivachi Devi (2020), reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471.

The Court quoted extensively from the Jivachi Devi judgment, which had reviewed a long line of earlier decisions —

  • Bishwanath Prasad v. State of Bihar (2011) 2 PLJR 136
  • Avinash Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 1 PLJR 663
  • Uday Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2017) 3 PLJR 824
  • Ramadhar Thakur v. State of Bihar, LPA No. 599/2015
  • Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 2 PLJR 643

In those cases, the Court had held that:

  • Passing the departmental accounts examination is a condition only for promotion to the selection grade, not for general promotion or financial upgradation.
  • The ACP Rules, 2003 and MACP Scheme do not require passing departmental exams unless there is a specific rule in the service cadre demanding it.
  • For employees aged 50 or above, the 1992 government resolution clearly grants exemption from such exams.

The Court reiterated that Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, and the Bihar State Employees (Assured Career Progression) Rules, 2003, when read together, do not make the departmental exam a condition for financial progression.

In light of this established legal position, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah held that the petitioner’s case deserved similar treatment as those decided earlier. He directed the Collector, Samastipur, to consider and grant ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioner, ignoring the fact that he had not passed the departmental exam, and to issue necessary orders within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision strengthens the rights of retired and senior government employees in Bihar, especially those who have served long tenures but were denied financial upgradation due to procedural conditions such as departmental exams.

Key takeaways:

  • Employees above 50 years of age are not required to pass departmental exams for ACP/MACP.
  • The High Court reaffirmed consistency in its jurisprudence by following multiple Division Bench precedents.
  • The judgment ensures that technicalities cannot deprive employees of legitimate career benefits earned through years of service.

For the administration, it serves as a reminder that government departments must apply the 1992 exemption rule and ACP/MACP schemes uniformly across all eligible employees. For retirees, it provides a clear precedent to claim financial progression benefits even after superannuation, as long as they were eligible at the time of retirement.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

  • Issue 1: Whether passing the departmental accounts examination is mandatory for granting ACP/MACP benefits.
    ✅ Decision: No. The High Court held that for general promotion and financial upgradation under ACP/MACP schemes, such examination is not mandatory.
  • Issue 2: Whether employees aged 50 or above are exempted from departmental exams.
    ✅ Decision: Yes. Under the 1992 resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, such employees are exempted from passing departmental exams.
  • Issue 3: Whether non-passing of the departmental exam can be used to deny ACP/MACP benefits.
    ❌ Decision: No. The Court relied on Jivachi Devi (2020) and other Division Bench rulings to hold that denial of ACP benefits on this ground is illegal.
  • Issue 4: What direction should be issued to the authorities.
    ✅ Decision: The Court directed the Collector, Samastipur, to grant ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioner within six weeks in accordance with Jivachi Devi (2020).

Judgments Referred by Parties

  • State of Bihar & Ors. v. Smt. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

  • Bishwanath Prasad v. State of Bihar (2011) 2 PLJR 136
  • Avinash Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 1 PLJR 663
  • Uday Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2017) 3 PLJR 824
  • Ramadhar Thakur v. State of Bihar, LPA No. 599 of 2015
  • Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 2 PLJR 643
  • Masomat Indu Devi v. State of Bihar (2019) 2 PLJR 241

Case Title

Choudhary Bimal Kumar Roy v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4449 of 2021

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 381

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah (Oral Judgment dated 13.04.2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

  • For the Petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Nath Jha, Advocate
  • For the Respondents (State): Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay (A.C. to G.P.-3)

Link to Judgment

MTUjNDQ0OSMyMDIxIzEjTg==-iX9jOJltaGo=

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.

Facing a similar matter before the Patna High Court? Contact Samvida Law Associates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent News