Facts
The petitioners, retired government employees, approached the Patna High Court seeking grant of their admissible benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP)/Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes and payment of consequential arrears.
Source reference: p.1–2, para.2They asserted that no ACP/MACP benefit had been granted during their service or after retirement.
Source reference: p.1–2, para.2The State raised a preliminary objection that the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 provided a specific mechanism for addressing service-related and retirement-benefit grievances, including ACP/MACP claims.
Source reference: p.2, para.3The Court examined the definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c) and the procedure under Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules.
Source reference: p.2–4, paras.4–4.1Issues
Whether the petitioners’ claim for ACP/MACP benefits and consequential arrears falls within the scope of “complaint” under Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019?
Source reference: p.2–3, para.4Whether the petitioners should first pursue the remedy of filing an online complaint under Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules instead of seeking direct adjudication of their claim through the writ petition?
Source reference: p.4–5, paras.4.1–5Law Applied
Rule 2(c) defines “complaint” to include grievances concerning service matters and retirement benefits, expressly including promotion, ACP/MACP, salary, allowances, pension, gratuity, leave encashment and General Provident Fund claims; matters already pending before a court, disciplinary or departmental proceedings, transfer/posting/deputation matters, and Right to Information Act matters are excluded.
Source reference: p.2–3, para.4Rule 3(a) permits serving and retired Bihar Government employees to lodge complaints online regarding service matters or retirement benefits, while Rule 3(b) requires a separate complaint for each subject.
Source reference: p.3–4, para.4.1The Court therefore treated the statutory grievance-redressal mechanism as the appropriate first forum for the petitioners’ ACP/MACP claim.
Source reference: p.4–5, para.5Reasoning
The petitioners’ grievance directly concerned ACP/MACP benefits and consequential retirement-related arrears, matters expressly covered by Rule 2(c) of the 2019 Rules.
Source reference: p.2–3, para.4Since the record did not indicate that the claim was already under consideration in another court or fell within any of the exclusions under Rule 2(c), the Court accepted the State’s preliminary objection that the prescribed grievance mechanism should be invoked.
Source reference: p.2–3, para.4Rule 3 provided the petitioners with an available remedy as retired government employees through an online complaint, with separate applications required for separate subjects.
Source reference: p.3–4, para.4.1Accordingly, the Court declined to adjudicate the entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits on merits at that stage and directed the petitioners to approach the competent authority under the 2019 Rules.
Source reference: p.4–5, para.5Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits.
It directed the petitioners to file an appropriate complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 before the concerned authority within 30 days from the date of judgment.
Source reference: p.5, paras.5–6The concerned authority was directed to decide the matter within the time prescribed under the 2019 Rules.
Source reference: p.5, paras.5–6Original Court PDF
Akhaj SinghvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
