ACP/MACP grievances fall within Bihar’s Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

The petitioner, a superannuated constable, approached the Patna High Court seeking grant of ACP/MACP benefits.

He had previously submitted a representation dated 28 January 2026 concerning the claim.

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

The Court examined the definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c), which expressly includes matters relating to ACP and MACP, as well as the prescribed complaint procedure under Rule 3.

Whether a claim for grant of ACP/MACP benefits by a serving or retired State Government employee constitutes a “complaint” under Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

Whether the petitioner should be required to pursue the remedy prescribed under the Rules of 2019 before obtaining adjudication of his ACP/MACP grievance by the High Court.

The Court applied Rule 2(c) of the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, which defines “complaint” to include service and retirement-benefit matters of serving and retired State Government personnel, specifically including promotion, ACP and MACP claims, salary-related benefits, and retirement benefits.

Rule 3(a) permits any serving or retired Bihar Government employee to file an online complaint regarding service matters or retirement benefits, while Rule 3(b) requires a separate application for each subject-matter grievance.

The Rules exclude matters already pending before a court, disciplinary or departmental proceedings, transfer/posting/deputation matters, and claims under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The petitioner’s claim concerned ACP/MACP benefits, which falls expressly within the definition of “complaint” under Rule 2(c).

Since the Rules provide a specific online grievance-redressal mechanism available to retired State Government employees under Rule 3(a), the Court accepted the State’s preliminary objection that the petitioner should invoke that mechanism.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to ACP/MACP; instead, it directed him to pursue the statutory/administrative remedy, after which the competent authority would decide the complaint within the period prescribed by the Rules.

It granted him liberty to file a complaint under the Rules within 30 days from 24 July 2026.

The concerned authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within the time specified under the Rules.

With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.