In Saurabh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat & Ors.(2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 24, 2025, wherein, it set aside the 3-page long order dated March 20, 2025 by Justice Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge of the High Court, which had turned down the appellant’s grievance on certain alleged allegations.This is the 11th judgement by Chief Justice Baajathri.
The appellant had assailed the order by Justice Dr. Anshuman passed in Saurabh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat & Ors.(2025).
Justice Dr. Anshuman had dismissed the writ petition which had prayer for setting aside the decision taken by the District Screening Committee in its meeting dated January 18, 2025 convened under the chairmanship of respondent District Magistrate, Patna and Communicated issued under the signature of respondent Deputy Collector-Establishment, Patna, whereby the benefit of MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010 has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of not having passed the Departmental Accounts Examination. It was also prayed to grant first MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, when the petitioner having completed 10 years of qualifying service, became eligible for grant of first MACP in terms with MACP Rules 2010. The petitioner had further prayed for granting him the benefit of 2nd MACP from due date when he completed 20 years of qualifying service. He sought a direction from the Court to the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary after allowing him the monetary benefit on grant of such 1st and 2nd MACP to the petitioner with effect from June 2012, in terms of MACP Rules 2010, taking into account that as conclusively held by the Supreme Court as well as the full bench of the High Court, passing of departmental accounts examination is not an essential requirement for the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP to the otherwise eligible employees like the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the decision of the District Screening Committee, Patna, has been challenged before the High Court. The State's counsel raised preliminary objection and submitted that "all pages are not in continuation. Internal page of the alleged Memo is page-7, page-14, page-26, page-27 and then final page is page-15. Counsel for the State submits that there is some interpolation in the said letter. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no explanation for the same. 6. As such, this writ petition is dismissed."
The Division Bench felt necessary to reproduce para of the order dated March 20, 2025, which reads: “4. Learned Counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that from Annexure-P/1 of the writ petition it transpires that all pages are not in continuation. Internal page of the alleged Memo is page-7, page-14, page-26, page-27 and then final page is page-15. Counsel for the State submits that there is some interpolation in the said letter.”
Justice Bajanthri has recorded in his judgment dated September 24, 2025 that "The counsel for the State on instruction had submitted that there was no interpolation in the letter vide Annexure-P/1." This observation contradicted para 4 of the order dated March 20, 2025 passed by Justice Dr. Anshuman.
Allowing the LPA, Justice Bajanthri observed: ''4. In the light of the aforementioned submission, the order of the learned Single Judge could have been set aside and remanded, however, having regard to the fact that it is a settled matter even in the absence of passing departmental examination, employee is entitled to benefit of MACP in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision read with the Full Bench decision of this Court, the appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2025 passed in CWJC No. 4253 of 2025, and it is set aside and so also official respondents memo no. 1 dated 18.01.2025 insofar as denial of MACP benefit is also set aside. 5. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to extend the MACP benefit to the appellant including arrears of amount within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.''
Strangely, the judgement of the Patna High Court's Division Bench does not mention the name of the Supreme Court decision which is required to be read with the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court on MACP.
The fact remains Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme was considered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421. This judgment elaborately compared the MACPS with the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, which was introduced with effect from August 9, 1999 and continued to remain in force till August 31, 2008. The Court has held that the MACP Scheme differed from the ACP scheme on several aspects, including two significant ones. First, the ACP Scheme envisaged financial upgradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service without one or two promotions, as the case may be, whereas the MACP Scheme envisaged three financial upgradations after completion of regular service of 10, 20, and 30 years without promotions and continuing on the same Grade Pay for a decade. Second, the financial upgradation under the ACPS was to the pay scale of the next higher promotional post in the service whereas, under the MACPS, financial upgradation was not with reference to the next higher promotional post but to the next higher grade pay in the scale of pay, as notified upon implementation of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 20084. The decision in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) was subsequently followed and elaborated upon by the Court in (Union of India vs. R.K. Sharma and Others (2021) 5 SCC 579; Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another v. K. Sudheesh Kumar and Others 2022) 3 SCC 649; and Union of India and Others v. Ex.HC/GD Virender Singh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1058.
https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-macp-scheme-high-court-jurisdiction-government-policies-1352078
Apparently, drawing on these judgements, Justice Bajanthri, concluded: ''8. In the alternative, if the appellant is entitled to any promotion as on the date of MACP due, he may be promoted on par with his junior and extend all service and monetary benefit within the time limit stipulated supra.''
No comments:
Post a Comment