ACP and retirement-benefit claims fall within the 2019 grievance redressal mechanism.

The petitioner, a retired/serving State Government employee who had been appointed as a Junior Account Clerk, sought revision of the benefits granted to him under the first and second Assured Career Progression (ACP) schemes.

He claimed entitlement to the higher pay scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹10,000–15,200, with effect from 9 August 1999, along with consequential salary arrears and revision of pensionary benefits.

The petitioner relied upon the Bihar State Employees’ Service Conditions (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, subsequent amendments, governmental resolutions, and judicial decisions, including Amresh Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar.

The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10 April 2026 before the concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was covered by the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 (“Rules of 2019”).

Whether the petitioner’s claim for revision of ACP benefits, consequential salary arrears, and pensionary benefits constituted a “complaint” under Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019?

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the remedy prescribed under the Rules of 2019 before seeking adjudication of his service-benefit grievance through a writ petition?

The Court applied Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, which defines “complaint” to include matters relating to salary, increments, promotion, ACP/MACP, pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retirement benefits; matters already pending before a court are excluded from the mechanism.

Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for filing such complaints online, permits serving and retired State Government employees to file complaints, and requires separate applications where relief is sought on more than one subject.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive entitlement under the ACP Rules, governmental resolutions, or the authorities cited by him.

The petitioner’s claims directly concerned ACP benefits, revision of pay, arrears of salary, and consequential pensionary benefits—subjects expressly included within the definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c).

Since the petitioner’s representation had not been considered through the statutory grievance-redressal mechanism, the Court accepted the State’s preliminary objection and treated the Rules of 2019 as the appropriate procedural avenue.

The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the claimed pay-scale revision or the cited precedents and resolutions, instead granting the petitioner liberty to invoke the prescribed mechanism.

It granted the petitioner liberty to file a complaint under those Rules within 30 days from 1 September 2026.

Upon filing, the concerned authority was directed to pass an order within the time prescribed by the Rules of 2019.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without adjudication on the merits of the petitioner’s ACP claim.