Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court

"It is no more res integra that the purpose of grant of ACP/MACP is to provide monetary benefits to the employees due to stagnation in service. As such, the requirements for grant of promotion cannot be the condition precedent to grant of ACP/MACP by which only monetary benefit is extended to an employee in absence of promotional avenues." Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 06, 2026, has held that the fulfilment of educational or departmental qualifications prescribed for regular promotion is not a condition precedent for the grant of financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) or Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes.

A bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that these schemes are non-functional in nature, designed specifically to alleviate the hardships of employees facing stagnation due to a lack of promotional avenues.

The respondent, Mohan Rajak, was appointed as a Junior Accounts Clerk in 1988 and was subsequently granted the benefits of the 1st ACP in 2000 and the 2nd MACP in 2008. However, when he applied for the 3rd MACP upon completing 30 years of service, the State authorities modified his previous benefits, shifting the date of his 1st ACP to 2022 and withdrawing the 2nd MACP, on the ground that he had not passed the mandatory 5th paper of the departmental accounts examination until 2022. The respondent successfully challenged this before a Single Judge, leading the State to file the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

The primary question before the court was whether the passing of all papers of a departmental accounts examination is a mandatory requirement for the grant of ACP and MACP benefits. The court was also called upon to determine whether the Jharkhand Accounts Clerical Service Cadre Rules, 2018, could be applied retrospectively to take away financial benefits that had already accrued to an employee under previous guidelines.

Court’s Observations On The Object Of ACP/MACP Schemes

The Court emphasized that the fundamental objective of ACP and MACP schemes is to provide a "safety net" for employees who are unable to secure regular promotions. By citing the Supreme Court’s precedent, the bench noted that these are incentive schemes intended to provide relief against stagnation.

ACP/MACP Benefits Intended To Mitigate Stagnation

The Court observed that since these schemes are devised to ensure that employees get financial relief in the form of regular upgradation on completion of specific years of service, they must be judged keeping in view their object and purport. The bench noted that the effect of the schemes is to provide monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.

Distinction Between Functional Promotion And Financial Upgradation

The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Amresh Kumar Singh & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others (2023). It reiterated that the requirements for a functional promotion cannot be mechanically imported as conditions for non-functional financial upgradation.

Promotion Requirements Not Condition Precedent For ACP

The bench noted that the fulfillment of educational qualifications or passing departmental exams prescribed under recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in-situ promotion. The Court held that extending monetary benefits to an employee in the absence of promotional avenues does not require the same rigorous criteria as a regular shift in rank and responsibility.

"The requirement for grant of promotion cannot be the condition precedent to grant of ACP/MACP by which only monetary benefit is extended to an employee in absence of promotional avenues."

Invalidity Of Retrospective Application Of 2018 Rules

Addressing the State’s reliance on the Jharkhand Accounts Clerical Service Cadre (Recruitment, Promotion & Terms of Service) Rules, 2018, the Court found that these rules could not be used to strip an employee of benefits that had already accrued decades earlier.

Accrued Benefits Cannot Be Taken Away By Subsequent Rules

The Court observed that the 2018 Rules became effective only from the date of the notification, i.e., April 24, 2018. Consequently, the benefits that had already accrued to the respondent prior to the issuance of the said notification could not have been taken away by the appellants by relying on these subsequent rules.

Confirmation Of Service Relates Back To Date Of Joining

The State had argued that the respondent’s service was only "confirmed" in 2022 after he passed the final departmental paper. The Court rejected this logic, stating that once the exam is passed, the confirmation should ideally relate back to the initial period of service.

Confirmation Not Dependent Solely On Date Of Passing Exam

The bench remarked that even Rule 7 of the 2018 Rules does not specify that the service of an employee will be confirmed only with effect from the date of passing the departmental accounts examination. The Court held that the respondent's service was required to be confirmed with effect from the date of his joining and not from the date of passing the 5th paper.

"The grant of 1st ACP and 2nd MACP was never questioned by the appellants till the writ petitioner filed representation for grant of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of his service."

Dismissing the State's appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order, directing the State to keep the respondent's 1st and 2nd financial upgradations intact and to extend the 3rd MACP benefit from the date he completed 30 years of service. The Court concluded that the State's attempt to "rectify" an alleged error after decades was legally untenable and contrary to the spirit of beneficial service schemes.

Date of Decision: 06 July 2026