Sudhanshu Shekhar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sudhanshu Shekhar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ application disposed of without going into merits; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach respondent No. 3 (Principal Chief Conservator of Forest) with a detailed representation and relevant documents within four weeks, such representation to be decided in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within 12 weeks of receipt; pending I.A. closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.08.1999 (in place of 01.01.2007), 2nd A.C.P. w.e.f. 23.04.2004 in the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500, and 3rd A.C.P./M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 28.01.2010 in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 (Grade Pay 4,600) on completion of 30 years of continuous service, at parity with similarly situated employees. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The writ application stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No. 3 by filing a detailed representation along with relevant documents within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

If such a representation is preferred within the stipulated period of four weeks, the concerned respondent shall dispose it of in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within 12 weeks (printed as 'l2 weeks') from the date of receipt of the representation.ratio¶34
Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — A.C.P./M.A.C.P. — Petitioner, a Forest Department employee, sought 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.08.1999 (instead of 01.01.2007), 2nd A.C.P. w.e.f. 23.04.2004 in the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 and 3rd A.C.P./M.A.C.P. w.e.f. 28.01.2010 in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 (Grade Pay 4,600) after 30 years of service, and quashing of Office Order No. 125 (Memo No. 2396) dated 27.10.2014 granting 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 01.01.2007; claimed parity with Shri Arjun Singh and Mukteshwar Boipai. Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496, sought disposal with liberty to approach the authority; respondents raised no objection but disputed parity, stating the State had already rectified the benefits of the similarly situated employee. HELD: Writ application disposed of without going into merits; liberty granted to the petitioner to file a detailed representation with relevant documents before respondent No. 3 within four weeks, to be decided in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations within 12 weeks of receipt; pending I.A. closed.

2026:JHHC:865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 3063 of 2019

Sudhanshu Shekhar Prajapati, Aged about 66 years, Son of Late Band Nidhi Prajapati, Resident of Village-Jarki, P.O. and P.S.Karaikella, District-West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, Jharkhand.

...... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

The Secretary Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal house, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi.

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi.

Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, Van Bhawan, CH Area (North West) Parshiaramga Near Sai Mandir, P.O. and P.S.- Sonari, District East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

Divisional Forest Officer, Van Pramandal Chaibasa, P.O.Chaibasa, P.S.-Sadar, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa. ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Sudhir Kr. Srivastava, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyadarshi, G.P.-VI

08/Dated:-13.01.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents for grant of:-

(i) 1^st A.C.P. with effect from 09.08.1999 in place of 01.01.2007.

(ii) 2^nd A.C.P. from the date of 23.04.2004 and in Scale of 6,500-10,500 and

(iii) 3^rd A.C.P./Μ.A.C.P. with effect from 28.01.2010 in the pay Scale of 9,30034,800 (Grade pay 4,600) after completion of 30 years of continuous service period.

(iv) And further quashing of Office order No.-125 (Memo No.-2396) dated 27.10.2014 (Annx-1) by which with effect from 01.01.2007 the 1^st A.C.P. was granted in place of 09.08.1999 issued under the signature of Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa.

As per the prevalent rule of grant of A.C.P. as the same is due to be granted to Petitioner whereas other similarly situated persons namely Shri Arjun Singh and Mukteshwar Boipai from with the effect from 1999 1^st A.C.P., from with effect from 2004 2^nd A.C.P., and with effect from 2010 3^rd A.C.P, had been granted

1

2026:JHHC:865

1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd A.C.P./M.A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service period in spite of clean record as the Petitioner has not guilty and has not been punished either in criminal case or in any departmental proceeding.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the latest judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. i.e. in the case of Amresh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496 , the instant application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent, who shall take a decision in the matter of grant of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. in accordance with law and also in view of the fact that similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of the same.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that if the petitioner chooses to approach the concerned respondent, he has no objection; however, his case of parity is not sustainable in view of the fact that the State government has already rectified the benefits of the similarly situated employee. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and looking to the nature of the prayer, the instant application stands disposed of without going into merits of the case, by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 by filing a detailed representation along with relevant documents within a period of four weeks.

If any, such representation is preferred within the aforesaid stipulated period, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned respondent in accordance with law and applicable rules

2

2026:JHHC:865

and regulations within a period of l2 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

January 13, 2026 vikas/uploaded 20.01.2026

3