Case Background
The original petitioner was a government health worker. He was first appointed on 13.10.1960 as a Superior Field Worker under the Malaria Eradication Programme, a government-sponsored programme.
Some time before 1974, this programme was closed. The State Government then took a policy decision to adjust all persons working under that programme into the regular Health Department as Basic Health Workers.
Under this policy, the petitioner’s services were absorbed in the Health Department as a Basic Health Worker by order dated 16.5.1974. He continued in service in this post and ultimately retired on 31.1.2000 from the Primary Health Centre at Masahari in Muzaffarpur.
During his service, he had been granted the first time bound promotion with effect from 1.4.1981. Later, this date was shifted to 16.5.1984. His second time bound promotion was cancelled, and some amounts were adjusted against his post-retiral dues.
These actions led him to file CWJC No. 690 of 2005 before the Patna High Court, challenging the treatment of his promotions and recovery of alleged excess amounts. That writ petition was allowed by order dated 7.12.2009. In that judgment, the Court held that his absorption as a Basic Health Worker on 16.5.1974 was not a promotion but only an adjustment after abolition of the earlier programme.
Despite that earlier order, the petitioner claimed that he did not get full benefits of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. He therefore filed the present writ petition, CWJC No. 3915 of 2012.
During the pendency of this writ, the original petitioner died on 22.6.2021. On 14.7.2025, his legal heirs were substituted in his place and continued the case as petitioners.
What the Court Examined and Decided
In this writ petition, the original reliefs sought were threefold. First, a direction to give replacement pay scale of Rs. 4000–6000 from 1.1.1996 as per Resolution No. 660 dated 8.2.1999 of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar. Second, a direction to grant first and second ACP benefits in the higher scale with effect from 9.8.1999 as per Notification No. 4685 dated 25.6.2003 of the Finance Department. Third, a direction to pay Rs. 10,000 as cost in light of an earlier order dated 19.10.2011 passed in M.J.C. No. 1633 of 2010.
However, when the matter was heard, counsel for the petitioners stated that, due to developments occurring during the pendency of this case, they would not press reliefs 1(i) and 1(iii). The writ petition was therefore confined only to prayer 1(ii), namely grant of benefits of first and second ACP with effect from 9.8.1999.
The petitioners’ case was that the original petitioner had already been granted first ACP by order dated 30.4.2005, with effect from 9.8.1999. Even so, the financial benefits flowing from that grant had not been paid to him. Further, according to them, he had not been granted the second ACP at all, though he had completed the required period of service.
On the other side, learned counsel for the State opposed the claim. One argument was that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, because in his earlier writ petition (CWJC No. 690 of 2005) he did not ask for ACP benefits. That earlier writ was confined to his grievances about time bound promotion and recovery of excess amounts.
The respondents also explained the service history from their perspective. They stated that the petitioner was appointed in 1960 as a Superior Field Worker. Later, under a policy decision, all workers under the Malaria Eradication Programme were adjusted into the regular Health Department as Basic Health Workers. Following this, his services were absorbed by order dated 16.5.1974.
With respect to ACP, the respondents accepted that by order dated 30.4.2005 the petitioner was given the benefit of first ACP with effect from 9.8.1999. However, they contended that he was not entitled to a second ACP. Their reasoning was that during his service period he had already received what they treated as a regular promotion to a higher scale as Basic Health Worker. Because of this, they argued, the second ACP benefit could not be granted.
The Court heard both sides and examined the materials on record. A central question was whether the earlier adjustment from Superior Field Worker to Basic Health Worker, on the closure of the Malaria Eradication Programme, could be treated as a promotion so as to deny second ACP benefits.
To answer this, the Court went back to its own earlier decision in CWJC No. 690 of 2005, decided on 7.12.2009. In that case, dealing with this very petitioner, the Court had made a clear finding. It quoted the relevant portion:
“Accordingly, it is that the absorption/adjustment of the petitioner from the post of Superior Field Worker, upon abolition of the Programme, to the post of Basic Health Worker by order dated 16.5.1974 was not a promotion.”
This earlier finding became crucial. The High Court noted that it had already held that the petitioner’s adjustment on 16.5.1974 to the post of Basic Health Worker, after abolition of the programme, was not a promotion. It was simply absorption in service as per a policy decision.
Once this was accepted, the Court held that the respondents’ current stand—treating this adjustment as a regular promotion to justify denial of second ACP—could not be sustained. The contention of the respondents stood “clearly answered” by the earlier judgment.
On this basis, the Court proceeded to determine the petitioner’s entitlement under the ACP Scheme.
The Assured Career Progression Scheme gave government employees financial upgradations after completion of certain years of service, if they had not received adequate regular promotions. In this case, the relevant date of introduction of the ACP Scheme was 9.8.1999.
The Court found that the petitioner had completed 24 years of service by that date. Since his earlier adjustment was not a promotion, and there was no valid reason on record to deny him the second ACP, he met the conditions for the second ACP benefit as on 9.8.1999.
Accordingly, the Court expressly held that the petitioner was entitled to grant of second ACP on completion of 24 years of service, i.e., with effect from 9.8.1999, the date the ACP Scheme came into force.
In addition, the Court directed that all consequential benefits flowing from the grant of second ACP must be paid to the petitioner. A specific time frame was fixed: payment had to be made within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order.
Finally, the writ application was allowed. There is no further direction recorded about interest or costs, and no finding of misconduct is noted against either side in the judgment.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for government employees, especially those who were shifted from one scheme or programme to regular departmental posts due to policy changes.
The Patna High Court has clearly stated that if an employee is merely adjusted or absorbed into another post because a programme is abolished, that does not automatically count as a promotion. If such absorption is wrongly treated as a promotion, employees may unfairly lose benefits like ACP.
Here, the Court protected the rights of a retired health worker and, after his death, his legal heirs. It ensured that he (through his heirs) receives the second ACP benefit from 9.8.1999 along with all consequential monetary benefits.
The decision sends a message that departments cannot rely on earlier “adjustment” orders to deny financial progression, especially when the Court has already held that such adjustment was not a promotion.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner’s absorption from Superior Field Worker to Basic Health Worker on 16.5.1974 could be treated as a regular promotion so as to deny him the benefit of second ACP from 9.8.1999.
Answer: No. The Court relied on its earlier decision in CWJC No. 690 of 2005 and held that the absorption/adjustment was not a promotion. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to second ACP from 9.8.1999 with all consequential benefits. - Issue: Whether the petitioner was entitled to second ACP on completion of 24 years of service as on 9.8.1999.
Answer: Yes. Since he had completed 24 years of service and had not received a promotion that would bar ACP, the Court held that he was entitled to second ACP with effect from 9.8.1999.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Court expressly relied on its earlier order dated 7.12.2009 passed in CWJC No. 690 of 2005, concerning the same petitioner, to hold that the 1974 absorption was not a promotion.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3915 of 2012
Case Title: Raj Kumar Thakur & Ors v. The State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2025 (4) PLJR 538
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Advocates:
- For the petitioners (heirs of original petitioner): Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: AC to AAG-4
- For the Accountant General, Bihar: Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) seeking grant of first and second Assured Career Progression benefits and consequential monetary dues.
Date of Judgment: 08.10.2025
CAV Date: 02.09.2025
Earlier Related Case: CWJC No. 690 of 2005, order dated 7.12.2009
Link to Judgment: file:///C:/Users/Adity/OneDrive/Documents/Vaktrita%20Final/case%201266.pdf
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.
