Jharkhand HC Upholds ACP/MACP Service Count From 1980 For Continuously Serving Clerk Who Cleared Departmental Exam In 2009

The respondent had served continuously from 15.04.1980. Although appointed as an Accounts Clerk, he cleared the departmental examination only on 23.08.2009.

The Single Judge allowed his writ petition and held that his qualifying service for the 1st and 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP benefits should be reckoned from 15.04.1980, rather than from the date he cleared the examination.

The State appealed, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar concerned qualifications for promotion, not failure to clear a departmental examination within the prescribed period.

The Division Bench condoned the 160-day delay and heard the appeal.

The Court applied the principle in Amresh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496, that ACP/MACP schemes compensate employees for stagnation in their existing posts and do not effect promotion; requiring qualifications prescribed for a promotional post may frustrate that purpose.

It also applied Article 141 of the Constitution, under which Supreme Court law binds subordinate courts.

Relying on R. Saravanan v. Periyar University, 2026 INSC 1136, the Court stated that a Letters Patent Bench should not interfere merely because an error of fact or law is alleged where the writ court’s decision furthers justice, equity and good conscience and is not contrary to public policy.

The respondent’s service had not been discontinued for failure to clear the examination; he had instead worked continuously from 15.04.1980.

The benefits at issue compensated for stagnation, and the record showed that he ultimately cleared the examination and was not ineligible for further promotion.

The Court therefore rejected the State’s attempt to distinguish Amresh Kumar Singh: excluding the period before 2009 would effectively disregard nearly 19 years of service and undermine the purpose of ACP/MACP.

Any inconsistency between the 2014 resolution and the Single Judge’s approach could not displace the binding Supreme Court decision.

The Single Judge’s order was also just and reasonable under the stated standard for Letters Patent review.

The appeal was dismissed without costs; the delay was condoned and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.