Passing Departmental Accounts Examination is not mandatory for granting financial benefits under ACP/MACP schemes.

The petitioner, a retired Upper Division Clerk who superannuated in 2013, sought a direction for the grant of financial benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Rules, 2003, and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Rules, 2010.

His claim was rejected by the State via order dated 04.08.2021 (Memo No. 899) on the grounds that his service record did not indicate he had passed the mandatory "Accounts Examination," which the State deemed essential for such benefits.

The petitioner challenged this rejection through an Interlocutory Application, asserting that passing the examination is not a prerequisite for ACP/MACP benefits.

1. Whether the passing of the Departmental Accounts Examination is a mandatory prerequisite for the grant of benefits under the ACP Rules, 2003 and MACP Rules, 2010.

Interpretation of Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, and Rule 4(5) of the ACP Rules, 2003, as established by the Full Bench in Kamlanand Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) 2 PLJR 623.

Requirements for regular promotion (such as departmental exams) do not apply to ACP/MACP schemes because these transitions are "in situ" financial progressions rather than regular functional promotions.

Finance Department Letter No. 4862 dated 29.04.2025, which mandated compliance with the Kamlanand Thakur judgment.

The Court reasoned that the legal landscape regarding ACP benefits in the absence of passing accounts examinations was conclusively settled by the Full Bench in Kamlanand Thakur.

The Full Bench held that Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules is confined to matters of confirmation and promotion to "Selection Grade," and does not govern financial progression under ACP/MACP.

Since ACP is an "in situ" promotion, the absence of an entry in the service book regarding the Accounts Examination cannot serve as a valid ground for withholding benefits.

The State’s objection that such an examination is sine qua non for the petitioner’s claim was found to be legally unsustainable.

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 04.08.2021 (Memo No. 899) was set aside; Respondent No. 3 was directed to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass a consequential order granting benefits within eight weeks.