Retired employees’ MACP claims must be considered on parity with serving employees, subject to appointment verification.

The five petitioners, retired employees of the Nawada Judgeship working as clerks and peons, sought the benefit of the third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme from their respective claimed dates, on the basis that they had completed more than 30 years of continuous service.

During the proceedings, the petitioners produced Letter No. 1397 dated 31 July 2026, showing that similarly situated employees had been granted the benefit with effect from 24 June 2025, and claimed parity with those employees, particularly the employees mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 3.

The petitioners relied on Ajit Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 18082 of 2010, decided on 21 June 2018, where first and second ACP benefits had been directed to be granted to similarly situated employees.

Respondent No. 2 opposed the claim by submitting that the Accountant General had objected to the grant of benefits because some petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ financial progression had been approved by the competent Committee, but retired employees had not been considered although their effective dates were identical to those of employees who received the benefit while in service.

1. Whether the retired petitioners were entitled to consideration for third MACP benefits on the ground of parity with similarly situated employees who had already been granted such benefits.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claim could be withheld indefinitely because of the Accountant General’s objection concerning their appointment against sanctioned posts and the pending determination of the validity of their appointments.

3. Whether Respondent No. 2 was required to consider and decide the petitioners’ claim under Clause 4(C) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

The Court applied the principle of parity, holding that similarly situated employees should receive equal consideration for financial progression benefits where their effective dates and service circumstances are identical.

It relied on Ajit Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 18082 of 2010, decided on 21 June 2018, which held that an employee’s entitlement to ACP benefits could not be indefinitely denied merely because the validity of the appointment was under consideration by the State Government; pending such determination, the benefits were directed to be granted.

The Court also directed consideration of the petitioners’ claim in light of Clause 4(C) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011.

The grant of relief remained subject to the State Government’s decision regarding the veracity of the petitioners’ appointments.

The Court found that the petitioners’ financial progression had already been approved by the concerned Committee and that employees with identical effective dates had received the benefit while in service, whereas the retired petitioners’ cases had not been considered.

Applying the parity principle and the reasoning in Ajit Kumar , the Court held that the Accountant General’s objection regarding sanctioned posts could not justify indefinite inaction on the petitioners’ claims.

However, rather than granting the MACP benefit directly, the Court required Respondent No. 2 to examine and decide the claims under Clause 4(C) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy within the prescribed period, subject to the State Government’s ultimate decision on the validity of the appointments.

The direction was expressly made subject to the State Government’s decision regarding the veracity of the petitioners’ appointments.