MACP grievances must be pursued through the prescribed Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules mechanism.

The petitioner, a government employee/retired government employee, filed the writ petition seeking financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (M.A.C.P.) with effect from 1 February 2005, along with 15% interest.

He also sought directions for identification and disciplinary action against officials allegedly responsible for non-grant of M.A.C.P., and exemplary damages of ₹5 lakhs for breach of public-law and constitutional duties.

The petitioner appeared in person but remained absent despite repeated calls, whereas the State was represented.

The State submitted that the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 provide a specific mechanism for raising service-related grievances, including claims concerning promotion, A.C.P. and M.A.C.P.

Whether the petitioner’s grievance concerning grant of M.A.C.P. could be pursued through the complaint mechanism under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019.

Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the 2019 Rules, rather than having the merits of the M.A.C.P. claim adjudicated directly in the writ proceeding.

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

Rule 2(c) defines “complaint” to include service and retirement-benefit matters, expressly covering promotion, A.C.P. and M.A.C.P.-related grievances, while excluding matters relating to disciplinary or departmental action, transfer/posting/deputation, and matters already under consideration before a court.

Rule 3(a) permits serving or retired State Government employees to file complaints online regarding service matters or retirement benefits, and Rule 3(b) requires a separate complaint for each subject.

The precedents cited in the petitioner’s prayers—Girija Nandan Singh v. State of Bihar, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh, Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India and United Air Travel Service v. Union of India—were not substantively examined or applied by the Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s principal grievance—non-grant of M.A.C.P.—fell squarely within Rule 2(c), which specifically includes M.A.C.P.-related service complaints.

Since the 2019 Rules provide an available and specific administrative remedy, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioner first to invoke that mechanism.

The Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s entitlement to M.A.C.P., interest, damages, or disciplinary action on merits.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a complaint before the competent authority, leaving the grievance to be decided in accordance with the procedure and time frame prescribed under the Rules.

The petitioner was granted liberty and directed to file a complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019 within 30 days from 18 August 2026.

The concerned authority was directed to decide the complaint strictly within the time prescribed by the Rules.

No separate relief regarding interest, damages, or disciplinary action was granted.