ACP/MACP service-benefit grievances must be pursued under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

The petitioner, a retired Block Statistical Officer, challenged the recommendation of the Promotion-cum-Screening Committee of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bihar, which declined to consider his entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits on the ground that judicial proceedings were pending against him.

His name appeared at Serial No. 91 in the Committee’s decision dated 16 September 2025.

The petitioner contended that the departmental proceeding against him had concluded in his favour pursuant to an order of the High Court and that his ACP/MACP benefit had remained pending since 25 July 2009, when no proceeding was pending against him.

He had submitted a representation to the Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Bihar.

The State submitted that although the departmental proceeding had ended, a criminal proceeding was still pending, and that the petitioner could pursue his grievance under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

1. Whether the petitioner’s ACP/MACP claim could be considered notwithstanding the pending criminal proceeding and the Committee’s recommendation declining such consideration?

2. Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory grievance-redressal mechanism under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration and grant of ACP/MACP benefits from the due date?

The Court applied the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

Rule 2(c) defines a “complaint” to include matters relating to service benefits, including promotion, ACP and MACP, as well as retirement benefits; however, matters already under consideration before a court, disciplinary or departmental matters, and transfer/posting/deputation matters are excluded.

Rule 3(a) permits serving and retired Bihar Government employees to file complaints concerning service matters or retirement benefits through the prescribed online procedure, while Rule 3(b) requires a separate complaint for each subject.

No judicial precedent was relied upon or discussed.

The Court noted the petitioner’s assertion that the departmental proceeding had concluded in his favour, but also recorded the State’s submission that a criminal proceeding remained pending.

Rather than adjudicating the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to ACP/MACP benefits or determining the legal effect of the pending criminal case, the Court focused on the availability of the specific grievance-redressal mechanism under the 2019 Rules.

Since Rule 2(c) expressly covers promotion, ACP and MACP-related grievances, and Rule 3 provides the procedure for filing such complaints, the Court considered that the petitioner should first invoke that mechanism.

The authority was directed to examine the grievance in accordance with the Rules and within the prescribed timeframe.

It directed the petitioner to file a complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 before the concerned authority within 30 days.

The concerned authority was directed to decide the matter strictly within the timeframe prescribed by the Rules.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.