BIRENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to correct and fix the pension taking into account the correct length of service of petitioner and revised pay scale and further direction upon the respondents to pay the arrears of first, second and third financial up-gradation under ACP Scheme and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to pay arrears of pension, post retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest.

(2.) Referring to supplementary counter affidavit 09.12015, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner has been paid all his retiral benefits and his pension has also been revised in terms of his revised pay-scale, as evident from Annexure I series to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, which has been communicated to the petitioner also. It has further been contended that petitioner has also been paid all his arrears on account of his pay revision as per 5th and 6th PRC and the petitioner is enjoying pension, which has been revised considering his total length of service. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that so far parity with the case of Saryu Prasad is concerned, he has passed the departmental accounts examination in 2007 itself, hence, he became entitled for benefits of ACP/MACP. Referring to Circular of Finance Department No. 4178 dated 108.1992, 4314 dated 21.06.1993 and letter no. 493 dated 202007, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is mandatory to pass the departmental examination to avail the benefit of ACP/MACP. It has further been submitted that even the competent authority-Commissioner, Kolhan Division has not approved the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has not passed the departmental accounts examination. Since the petitioner has neither passed the departmental examination nor has approached the authority concerned while in service, after attaining age of 50 years that he is otherwise eligible for ACP/MACP, now cannot claim benefits of ACP.

(3.) In support of her argument, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case of Veer Kumar Jha & Ors Vs. R.G., High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P. (S) No. 2803 of 2003 dated 11.12.2014, wherein the Honourable Court has been pleased to hold that petitioner has not been granted exemption from passing departmental examination by the competent authority, which is mandatory requirement for being considered for grant of any Time Bound Promotion after crossing the age of 50 years. In the case at hand, the petitioner has also not been granted such exemption, hence, in the facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for such Time Bound Promotion.