Case Background
This case was filed as Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 288 of 2020 before the Patna High Court.
The petitioners are three retired employees. They had served in the Water Resources Department of the State of Bihar. After long service, they were entitled to financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.
These schemes are meant to give salary upgradations to employees who do not receive regular promotions within a fixed period of service. The idea is to compensate employees for stagnation in the same post.
The competent authorities of the Water Resources Department rejected the petitioners’ claim to ACP and MACP benefits. The rejection order is dated 30-08-2019.
During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner no. 2 unfortunately passed away. Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 was filed to substitute the name of his son in his place. The Court allowed this application without objection and directed that the name of the applicant in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 be substituted as petitioner no. 2 in the cause title.
Aggrieved by refusal of ACP and MACP benefits, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the rejection order and direction for grant of benefits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad on 07-07-2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State were both heard. The State filed two counter affidavits and produced a hard copy in Court. A copy had already been served on the petitioners’ counsel.
The central dispute was narrow and clear. The authorities had denied ACP and MACP benefits to the petitioners on the ground that they had not passed the departmental accounts examination.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that this ground was illegal. He submitted that several decisions of the Patna High Court had already settled the position that non-passing of such accounts examination cannot be made a condition for being considered for, or for being granted, ACP/MACP benefits.
According to him, the ACP and MACP schemes grant financial progression based on length of service and absence of promotion. These are not “promotions” in the strict sense that require clearing departmental examinations. Therefore, refusing these benefits solely on the ground of non-passing of accounts examination was contrary to the settled law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State attempted to justify the rejection. He relied on Rule 157(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. On the strength of this rule, he argued that passing of the departmental accounts examination was necessary and, as the petitioners had not passed, they were rightly denied ACP/MACP benefits.
However, the State counsel could not escape the binding effect of recent higher bench decisions. He was unable to dispute that the issue was already concluded by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Sri Ram Subhag Singh arising out of LPA No. 4 of 2021.
The Single Judge reproduced at length the relevant extract from the Division Bench judgment in Sri Ram Subhag Singh. That Division Bench had itself considered earlier pronouncements, including State of Bihar and others vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471. The State had unsuccessfully challenged Jivachi Devi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Division Bench in Sri Ram Subhag Singh recorded that the issue was “no longer res integra”, meaning no longer open to doubt. It held that non-passing of the accounts examination cannot be a ground to deny consideration for, or grant of, ACP/MACP benefits.
In turn, the Division Bench in Smt. Jivachi Devi had taken note of a series of earlier Division Bench decisions of the Patna High Court. These included:
- Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 136
- Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 663
- Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2017) 3 PLJR 824
- Judgment dated 19.03.2018 in LPA No. 599 of 2015 (Ramadhar Thakur v. The State of Bihar)
After examining these and other authorities, the Division Bench in Jivachi Devi had clearly held that the only question was whether passing of the departmental accounts examination is necessary for grant of Assured Career Progression benefits under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, read with Clause (J) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958.
The Bench answered that question in favour of the employees. It agreed that the issue was no longer open as it had been repeatedly decided by different Division Benches in similar cases, including State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, (2013) 2 PLJR 643; Uday Shankar Prasad; and Ramadhar Thakur.
In Ramadhar Thakur, the Division Bench had carried out an extensive analysis of Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 and Rule 4 (clause 5) of the 2003 ACP Rules. After considering several judgments, including Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, Syed Mozammil Ashraf, Shashi Shekhar Ambasta, Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Rameshwar Roy, Daya Shankar Singh and Md. Shamsuddin, it concluded that:
- Rule 157(3)(J) makes passing of the departmental accounts examination a condition only for promotion to the selection grade.
- It is not a condition for general promotion.
- For not passing such examination, ACP benefits under the 2003 Rules cannot be withheld, unless there is a specific departmental rule for promotion to that effect.
- Thus, passing the departmental accounts examination is not a condition precedent for grant of ACP benefits, and Rule 157(3)(J) does not create such a requirement.
The Division Bench had also referred to Masomat Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 2 PLJR 241, where a learned Single Judge reiterated that passing accounts or departmental examination under the 1958 Rules is necessary only for crossing the efficiency bar, confirmation, and promotion to selection grade, but not for general promotion.
In Jivachi Devi, following this settled law, the Division Bench found the State unjustified in refusing financial progression on the ground that the employee had not passed the accounts or departmental examination. The appeal was dismissed and directions were issued to grant ACP benefits.
Relying on these binding precedents, the Patna High Court in the present case examined whether there was any distinct requirement applicable to the petitioners. Two counter affidavits had been filed by the State. Yet, the State counsel could not point out that, in the case of the petitioners, passing the departmental accounts examination was a condition for regular promotions under any specific rule.
In absence of any such special rule, the Court held that the issue was covered by the settled legal position explained in Sri Ram Subhag Singh and the chain of decisions leading up to it.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the authorities were wrong in rejecting the petitioners’ claim for ACP and MACP benefits solely because they had not passed the accounts examination.
Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated 30-08-2019 by which the petitioners’ claims had been rejected.
The Court then remitted the matter back to the competent authorities. It directed them to reconsider and grant ACP/MACP benefits to the petitioners without raising any objection regarding non-passing of the accounts examination.
The Court also set a clear timeframe. It ordered that the entire exercise of consideration and grant of due and admissible benefits must be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the Court’s order.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment matters primarily for employees and pensioners of the Government of Bihar, especially those who have served long years but did not clear the departmental accounts examination.
The Patna High Court has reinforced that, under existing law and past judgments, failure to pass the accounts examination cannot be used as a ground to deny ACP or MACP benefits, unless there is a specific departmental rule that clearly says so for promotions.
For many retired employees, ACP and MACP benefits significantly affect their last drawn pay and pension. Denial of these benefits often reduces their financial security after retirement. This judgment offers reassurance that such denial, merely on the ground of non-passing of accounts examination, is illegal and can be challenged.
The judgment also sends a clear message to government departments. They must follow the settled law declared in earlier Division Bench judgments and cannot keep relying on Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 to deny ACP/MACP when courts have already explained the limited scope of that rule.
In simple terms, the decision tells long-serving employees that lack of a departmental exam certificate should not, by itself, stand between them and their legitimate financial progression under ACP and MACP schemes.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the State Government deny ACP and MACP benefits to employees solely because they have not passed the departmental accounts examination under Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958?
Answer: No. Following binding Division Bench decisions, the Patna High Court held that non-passing of the accounts examination is not a valid ground to refuse consideration or grant of ACP/MACP benefits, particularly when no specific departmental rule makes such examination mandatory for regular promotion. - Issue: What should happen to a rejection order based only on non-passing of the accounts examination?
Answer: Such an order must be quashed, and the authorities must reconsider the employee’s case for ACP/MACP benefits without treating the accounts examination as a barrier, and must complete this exercise within a fixed timeframe.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Sri Ram Subhag Singh, arising out of LPA No. 4 of 2021
- State of Bihar and others vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471
- Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 136
- Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 663
- Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2017) 3 PLJR 824
- Ramadhar Thakur v. The State of Bihar, LPA No. 599 of 2015 (judgment dated 19.03.2018)
- State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, (2013) 2 PLJR 643
- Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar, (2006) 1 PLJR 282
- Syed Mozammil Ashraf v. The State of Bihar, (2007) 1 PLJR 438
- Shashi Shekhar Ambasta v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 3 PLJR 474
- Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2000) 4 PLJR 262
- Rameshwar Roy v. The State of Bihar, (2017) 2 PLJR 127
- Daya Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2010) 3 PLJR 220
- Md. Shamsuddin vs. The State of Bihar, 1983 PLJR 347
- Masomat Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 2 PLJR 241
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 288 of 2020
Case Title: Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 07-07-2022
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 595
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-4
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging rejection of claim for ACP/MACP benefits to retired government employees.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
