Binay Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Binay Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Letter No.2884 dated 18.08.2021 set aside; matter remanded to respondents to pass a detailed order for grant of ACP/MACP; respondents directed to re-fix the petitioner's pay scale and pay the arrears accruing thereof; writ petition disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for grant of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. could be rejected on the grounds of non-availability of his service book, non-verification of service for the periods 01.10.2005-30.04.2006 and 01.03.2015-28.02.2017, and non-availability of ACRs for 01.04.1999-31.04.2004, when these grounds are not attributable to the petitioner.

Court's answer

The grounds relied upon for not extending ACP/MACP benefits cannot be attributed to the petitioner; it is the respondents who are the custodian of the service book.

Ratio / Principle

As regards non-verification of service, it is for the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner's status during the said periods; if he is found not to have worked or to have been absent, the period should be regularized considering his leave and service law.

Key takeaways

It is the employer-respondent who has to maintain the ACR of the employee; non-availability of the ACR cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of the ACP/MACP benefits.ratio¶35
Any ground mentioned in the impugned Letter dated 18.08.2021 rejecting grant of ACP/MACP which is not attributable to the petitioner should not come in the way of the petitioner getting the benefits.ratio¶36
The impugned Letter No.2884 dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - ACP/MACP financial upgradation - Claim of employee rejected citing non-availability of service book, non-verification of service (01.10.2005-30.04.2006 and 01.03.2015-28.02.2017) and non-availability of ACRs (01.04.1999-31.04.2004) - Court held such grounds are administrative lapses attributable to the employer-respondents, not the employee-petitioner; respondents as custodian of the service book must decide and, if need be, regularize unverified service periods per leave and service law; employer must maintain ACRs and their non-availability cannot deprive the employee of benefits - Impugned Letter No.2884 dated 18.08.2021 set aside - Matter remanded to respondents to pass a detailed order granting ACP/MACP - Since petitioner had not got regular promotion, pay scale to be re-fixed and arrears paid - Writ petition disposed of (Ananda Sen, J.).

2026:JHHC:2664

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3520 of 2021

------

Binay Kumar Thakur, son of Late Yasodhar Thakur, residing at 121A, Kalpanapuri, Adityapur-1, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawa (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand.

Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

Under Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

Dy. Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.

Additional Collector, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.

Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.

… … Respondents

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): AC to AAG Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

------

09/ 02.02.2026

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“for issuance of appropriate writ’s, order/s, direction/s for direction upon the respondents to pay benefit of 1^st , 2^nd & 3^rd A.C.P./M.A.C.P. and also grant promotional benefits to the post of Assistant Settlement Officer/Circle Officer in view of Notification issued by Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department and revise the pension after giving benefit of A.C.P./M.A.C.P. and promotional benefits with statutory interest.

AND/OR

1

2026:JHHC:2664

Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the letter no. 2884 dated 18.8.2021 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioner has been communicated that his claim for grant of ACP/MACP has been rejected on the ground of nonavailability of service book, non-verification of service from 1.10.2005 to 30.4.2006 and from 1.3.2015 to 28.2.2017 and non-availability of ACR for the period 1.4.1999 to 31.4.2004 in a most illegal and arbitrary manner”.

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The claim of the petitioner for grant A.C.P. / M.A.C.P. has been rejected on the following grounds:-

(i) original service book of the petitioner was not provided;

(ii) service verification report for the period 01.10.2005 till 30.04.2006 and from 01.03.2015 to 28.02.2017, has not been provided;

(iii) the ACR of the petitioner for the period 01.04.1999 till 31.04.2004, for the purpose of granting 1^st A.C.P., was not provided.

4. The aforesaid grounds for not extending the benefits of ACP / MACP, cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is the respondents who are the custodian of the service book. Further, so far as non-verification of service period of the petitioner is concerned, it is the respondents who have to take a decision about the status of the petitioner during the aforesaid period and if at all

2

2026:JHHC:2664

the petitioner has not worked or found absent for the aforesaid period, that service period should be regularized considering his leave and service law.

4.1. Further, it is the employer-respondent, who has to maintain the ACR of the employee. Non availability of the same cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner from getting the aforesaid benefits.

4.2. In fact, any of the grounds mentioned in the impugned Letter dated 18.08.2021 rejecting grant of ACP/MACP, which are not attributable to the petitioner, should not come in the way of the petitioner in getting the benefits of ACP/MACP.

5. Thus, the impugned Letter No.2884 dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside.

6. However, the matter is remanded back to the respondents to pass a detailed order for grant of ACP/MACP in favour of the petitioner.

6.1. Since admittedly, the petitioner has not got his regular promotion, the respondents will consequently re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner and will pay the arrears accruing thereof.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of .

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

02^nd February, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

Uploaded on 05.02.2026

3