Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court examined whether the government could recover benefits already given to clerks under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes when employees were unable to clear departmental examinations due to no fault of their own.
The petitioners were four correspondence clerks working in the Road Construction Department of Bihar. They were appointed between 1990 and 1994. Under the ACP Rules, 2003 (effective from 09.08.1999), employees who completed 12 years of service without promotion were entitled to the first ACP, and after 24 years, to the second ACP. Later, under the MACP Rules, 2010, employees were given financial progression after 10, 20, and 30 years of service.
A key requirement for these benefits was passing the departmental accounts examination conducted by the Board of Revenue, Bihar. However, from 1996 to 2004, no departmental examinations were conducted at all. This left employees like the petitioners with no chance to qualify, even though they had already completed 12 years of service. Despite this, benefits were eventually given to them through common government notifications.
In 2020, the department suddenly issued orders (dated 19.02.2020 and 12.05.2020) changing the effective dates of ACP/MACP benefits and ordering recovery of alleged “excess payments” from the petitioners. Salary was also withheld until fixation as per the new orders.
The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing that they should not suffer for the failure of the government to conduct exams in time. They relied on a previous Patna High Court judgment in Pranav Kant Babban v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 6867 of 2016, decided on 04.07.2016), which was upheld in LPA No. 1695 of 2016 (11.12.2017).
The State defended the recovery orders, claiming exams were indeed conducted during 1996–2004 and alleging fraud in the earlier case relied upon by the petitioners.
After considering the records, the Court held:
- It was not disputed that no departmental exam was conducted for almost 8 years (1996–2004). Hence, employees could not be faulted for not clearing it.
- The petitioners had not committed fraud or misrepresentation. They had received ACP/MACP benefits through official notifications applicable to many employees.
- Years later, revising the effective date of benefits and seeking recovery was irrational and unjustified.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which laid down situations where recoveries from employees are impermissible in law—such as recoveries from Class III/IV employees, or where excess payments had been made for over five years.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed the impugned orders and directed refund of the recovered amounts to the petitioners within 8 weeks.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For employees:
- Protects Class III and IV employees from arbitrary recovery of salary already paid under government orders.
- Establishes that employees cannot be penalized if departmental exams are not held due to the authorities’ fault.
- Gives relief to many employees who were similarly denied ACP/MACP benefits or threatened with recovery.
For government departments:
- Reinforces that once benefits are lawfully granted, recovery years later is legally unsustainable unless fraud is proved.
- Mandates timely conduct of departmental examinations to avoid similar disputes.
- Ensures that hardship to low-level employees must be balanced against the government’s right to recover.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Can ACP/MACP benefits be denied if departmental exams were not held by the government?
• No. Employees cannot be penalized for failure of authorities to conduct exams. - Can recovery of ACP/MACP benefits be made years later from clerks who received them under official notifications?
• No. Recovery is arbitrary, unjustified, and barred under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rafiq Masih. - Are employees guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in such cases?
• No. When benefits were given through official notifications, employees cannot be accused of fraud.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Pranav Kant Babban v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 6867 of 2016 (Patna HC, 04.07.2016)
- LPA No. 1695 of 2016 (Patna HC, 11.12.2017)
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334
Case Title
Shiv Shankar Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7277 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 93
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh (Oral Judgment dated 22-02-2021)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioners: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate
- For the respondents (No. 2 to 7): Mr. R.K. Chandram, AC to GP 19
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzI3NyMyMDIwIzEjTg==-3z68P–ak1–ek–ak1–mw=
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.
