Requisite benchmark for financial progression cannot be denied if parity is established with similarly situated employees.

The petitioner, a retired employee of the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, challenged the order dated 24.01.2019 (Memo No. 265), which rejected his claim for the grant of 3rd ACP/MACP benefits.

The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite benchmark of 'very good' in his performance evaluation.

The petitioner sought parity with a similarly situated employee, Dilip Kumar Srivastava, whose claim for identical benefits was upheld by a Single Judge and subsequently affirmed by a Division Bench in LPA No. 41 of 2022.

During proceedings, the State filed a supplementary counter affidavit stating that a Screening Committee meeting held on 07.05.2026 had already granted benefits to Dilip Kumar Srivastava based on revised guidelines, and the petitioner's case was being processed for the next committee meeting.

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s 3rd ACP/MACP benefits on the grounds of failing to meet the 'very good' benchmark was legally sustainable in light of General Administration Department (GAD) clarifications and judicial precedents.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to parity in treatment and benefits with the case of Dilip Kumar Srivastava.

The Court relied upon the circular/decision of the General Administration Department dated 24.05.2011, which clarifies performance benchmarks for financial upgradations.

The Court applied the principle of judicial parity and stare decisis based on the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 41 of 2022, which established that such claims cannot be rejected solely for lacking a 'very good' benchmark if other criteria are met.

The Court examined the Petitioner’s contention that his case was identical to that of Dilip Kumar Srivastava. The Court noted the State's admission in their supplementary counter affidavit that the legal impediment regarding the 'very good' benchmark had been resolved by the GAD's clarification and the subsequent affirmation by the Division Bench in LPA No. 41 of 2022.

The Court reasoned that since the Screening Committee had already granted relief to the similarly situated employee (Srivastava) on 07.05.2026, the same logic must apply to the petitioner. Consequently, the original rejection order was found to be erroneous as it ignored the prevailing legal clarifications regarding departmental benchmarks.

The Court directed the respondent authorities to place the petitioner’s case before the next Departmental Screening Committee meeting and take a decision within three months. It further ordered that if the claim is found favorable (on parity with others), all consequential monetary benefits must be accorded to the petitioner within the stipulated period.