SHEO DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 19.09.2016(Annexure-6), by which the benefit of 3rd MACP to the petitioner was denied. Further prayer has been made to grant the benefits of 3rd MACP with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Work Charge employee in the year, 1972-73. Subsequently, his services were regularized in the year, 1977 and further, he was appointed to the post of Accounts Clerk on 0.9.07.1981. After serving the department for long years i.e. more than 30 years, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.07.2010. It is specific case of the petitioner that during his service career, he was granted the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP. Though he worked for more than 30 years, he was denied the benefits of 3rd MACP vide order 19.09.2016 on a totally wrong calculation of the service period of the petitioner. As per the respondents, the petitioner has rendered less than 30 years of services i.e. 29 years and 21 days, which is less than 30 years and as such, the benefit of 3rd MACP has been denied. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court.

(3.) Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Sinha, appears on behalf of the petitioner and strenuously urges that petitioner cannot be denied the benefits of 3rd MACP on a wrong calculation of the service period rendered by the petitioner. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that it is also admitted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that services of the petitioner was regularized in the year 1979 w.e.f. 01.04.1977. As the petitioner has received the entire benefits including the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP but only the 3rd MACP has been denied on completely frivolous ground even if the date of regularization is taken into consideration, the petitioner has rendered his services for more than 30 years. Learned Sr. Counsel further argues that it is settled principle of law that services of the State Government Employees for the pensionary benefits are taken into consideration from the initial appointment and the present petitioner is also a work charge employee and his services was regularized in the year, 1977 and taking into consideration the regular service from the year, 1977 itself, there is no occasion to say that he has not completed 30 years of services as on date of superannuation. As per the MACP Scheme also, even the work charge employees are entitled for all the benefits for which the regular employees are entitled. The services of the petitioner has been regularized for all the purposes, the entire benefits, which has accrued to a regular employee, the petitioner is also entitled and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP and quash the impugned order.