Ranjit Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand

2025:JHHC:32994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P (S). No. 2286 of 2020

Ranjit Gope, son of late Salay Gope, resident of Narsanda, P.O. Narsanda, P.S. Muffasil, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶5

.......... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.

¶9

The Deputy Collector (Establishment), office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Porahat, Chakradharpur, P.O. and P.S. Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum.

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum.

¶12

The Block Development Officer, Manoharpur, P.O. and P.S. Manoharpur, District West Singhbhum.

¶13

The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, office at P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. ......... Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶16

For the Petitioner	:	Mr. Mr.	M.M. Sharma, Advocate S.B. Gupta, Advocate
For the State	:	Mr.	Apoorva Singh, AC to SC(M)-II
For the A.G.	:	Mr. ----	Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate

¶17

06/ 04.11.2025 The instant application has been preferred for the following

¶18

reliefs:

¶19

(a) For quashing of reasoned order dated 27.06.2019 as in contained in Memo No.43 (A)/Vidhi dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-2), passed by respondent no.2 whereby petitioner's claim of M.A.C.P./A.C.P. has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed the second part of departmental examination which is as a matter of fact incorrect.

¶20

(b) For grant of due promotion/MACP/ACP from the due date, with monetary benefits.

¶21

(c) For revision of retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and leave after calculation of encashment benefits of ACP/MACP.

¶22

(d) For direction to the respondent no.4 to make payment of the due salary for the period under suspension from 02.02.1995 to 09.03.1997 for which direction has already been given by the respondent no.2 in Para-Ka of Memo No. 43(A)/Vidhi dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-2).

¶23

1

¶24

2025:JHHC:32994

¶25

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for ACP/MACP benefit has been passed on the ground that petitioner has not cleared the 2^nd part of the departmental examination. However, the issue with regard to passing of departmental examination for getting the benefits under ACP/MACP has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.¹ ; as such, the impugned order may be quashed as the issue involved in this case has been set at rest.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid contention that the issue with regard to passing of the departmental examination for getting time bound promotion under ACP/MACP Scheme has been set at rest in the aforesaid case.

¶27

4. This fact has also not been disputed by learned counsel representing the respondent-Accountant General.

¶28

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (Supra) , it appears that the issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the Scheme was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay-scale for the grant of financial upgradation only without grant of actual promotion. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the benefit of ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.

¶29

6. For brevity paragraphs 12 to 19 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh (Supra) is extracted herein below:

¶30

“12. It may be worth noting that the ACP scheme was enforced on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in context with Group C and D employees and it provided monetary benefit to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service who were not able to get promotion. The scheme as such was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay scale for the grant of financial upgradation only

¶31

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496

¶32

2

¶33

2025:JHHC:32994

¶34

without grant of actual promotion. The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.

¶35

13. At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period.

¶36

14. The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. C.R. Madhava Murthy, (2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.

¶37

15. In sum and substance, both ACP and MACP Schemes are schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief in the form of financial benefits. Accordingly, the schemes provide for regular financial upgradation on completion of 12-24 years and 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. They are incentive schemes for the employees who complete a particular period of service but without getting promotion for lack of promotional avenues. The effect of the schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of the scheme.

¶38

16. In Union of India v. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.

¶39

17. It was further observed that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.

¶40

18. In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the matter being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on non-functional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for such nonfunctional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.

¶41

3

¶42

2025:JHHC:32994

¶43

19. In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated 28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.”

¶44

7. Having regard to the aforesaid settled position, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned order, so far as it relates to granting situ promotion, suffers from infirmity and is directly in the teeth of judgment referred to herein above. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.06.2019, so far as it relates to rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of ACP/MACP benefits is concerned; is hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶45

8. Before parting, it is relevant to indicate that in the Reasoned order, the Respondents have already sanctioned the due salary for the period under suspension i.e. from 02.02.1995 to 09.03.1997; since Petitioner claims that he has not received the same, the Respondents are directed to verify and if the same has not been paid till date, the same shall be paid to the petitioner as early as possible but not beyond the period of eight weeks. So far as financial upgradation is concerned, the consequential benefits shall be paid within the aforesaid stipulated period.

¶46

9. As result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove.

¶47

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶48

4^th November, 2025 Kunal Uploaded on 13/11/ 2025

¶49

4

Ranjit Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Gope v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Sunil Kumar Sultania Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department

Jharkhand State Civil Courts Stenographers Associations through Its Secretary Nagendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Chandra Goyenka Charitable Trust through Its Authorized Signatory Krishna Mohan Chowbey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, through Santoush Kadam, Vs Jay Prakash Singh