1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs:

                  i) For quashing the office order no. 9 and memo no. 74 dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Simdega as well as quash the office order no. 42 and memo no. 1596 dated 09.12.2017 (Annexure-3/1).

                  ii) For directing the concern respondents to provide the 1st ACP to the petitioner as a scale structure of Rs. 4000-6000 and grade pay of Rs. 2800/- from the date of 13.07..2000 as well as 2nd ACP as a scale structure of 6500-10500/grade pay of Rs. 4200/- from the date of 13.07.2012.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that since he is matriculate and due to non-passing departmental examination, the benefit of 1st ACP has been delayed and 2nd ACP has been denied by the Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 which is the order passed in the case of similarly situated employees, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted the benefit of ACP to all the employees ignoring the ground for passing of the departmental examination.

4. Learned counsel for the State relies upon the counter affidavit and submits that the case of the Petitioner cannot be equated by common order passed by this Court, which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the writ petition; however, he could not dispute the fact that the issue has now been well settled that for taking the benefit under ACP/MACP Scheme the departmental examination is not required.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and also the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the grievance of the Petitioner with regard to ACP benefit has been set at rest by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.( 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt this issue in detail and came to the conclusion that ACP Scheme was imposed on the recommendation of 5th C.P.C and its object has been reiterated in several judgments as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it has also been held that both ACP & MACP Schemes are devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some reliefs in the form of financial benefits. For brevity, Paras- 9 to 19 in the case of Amresh Kumar Sinha (Supra) are extracted hereinbelow:

                  “9. The Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000 as notified on 28th March, 2000 vide Rules 17 and 20 read with Schedule I thereof provides for recruitment by way of promotion. The aforesaid Rule 17, inter alia, provides that for promotion on the basis of grade of service, candidates must possess qualifications mentioned in Schedule I which, inter alia, provides that for promotion to Bihar Accounts Service, the minimum educational qualification shall be graduation.

                  10. At the same time Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career  Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 vide sub-Rule (5) of Rule 4 lays down that if the rules prescribe passing of the departmental examination or any qualification for promotion that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the scheme. In other words, possession of essential qualification prescribed under the rules is necessary for grant of benefit under the scheme, i.e., ACP.

                  11. It is in view of the above rules, the contention of the State is that until and unless the Accountant Clerks possess the minimum educational qualifications of graduation, they are not entitled to promotion in the grade of Bihar Accounts Service that is the Accounts Officer.

                  12. It may be worth noting that the ACP scheme was enforced on the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in context with Group C and D employees and it provided monetary benefit to the employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service who were not able to get promotion. The scheme as such was anti-stagnation and envisages merely placement of the employees in the higher pay scale for the grant of financial upgradation only without grant of actual promotion. The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.

                  13. At the cost of repetition, it must be borne in mind that the object of ACP is to avoid stagnation where no promotional avenues are available. The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him. This is only to accord monetary benefit without disturbing any seniority or actually effectuating promotion to any higher post to avoid stagnation on a particular post or pay scale for a very long period.

                  14. The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. (2022) 6 SCC 183, as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.

                  15. In sum and substance, both ACP and MACP Schemes are schemes devised with the object of ensuring that the employees who are unable to avail of adequate promotional opportunities, get some relief in the form of financial benefits. Accordingly, the schemes provide for regular financial upgradation on completion of 12-24 years and 10-20-30 years of service without promotion. They are incentive schemes for the employees who complete a particular period of service but without getting promotion for lack of promotional avenues. The effect of the schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of the scheme.

                  16. In Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-Judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits.

                  17. It was further observed that fulfilment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e., only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.

                  18. In the aforesaid case, the employees were working as malis (Gardeners) and had claimed promotion in the higher pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal seized of the original applications observed that the employees cannot claim the scale of the next higher post by way of in situ promotion. On the matter being taken to the High Court by way of a writ petition, the contention of the employees was accepted and it was observed that the object of in situ promotion on non-functional posts, is to ensure that the group C and D employees are not stagnated in the same cadre/pay scale and that they should be provided with certain monetary benefits. Therefore, the rejection of the claim for such non-functional in situ promotion on the ground that the employees do not possess the necessary minimum qualification of matriculation as per the rules is not justified and renders the order erroneous in law. The view so taken by the Division Bench of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in the above referred Civil Appeals holding that the High Court has correctly analysed the object of the in situ promotion and fixation of pay scales to Group C and D employees to avoid stagnation.

                  19. In view of the aforesaid legal position coupled with the fact that the qualification of graduation prescribed is for the promotion to the post of Accounts Officer rather than for the grant of in situ promotion on the non-functional post or for extending the benefit of ACP which is purely and simply in the nature of grant of monetary benefit without actually effectuating any promotion to any higher post, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court impugned in the appeals cannot be sustained. It is accordingly hereby set aside and that the judgment of the writ court dated 28.11.2017 is restored. The appellants are extended the benefit of ACP, as directed by the writ court.”

6. Respectfully, following the same finding, the instant writ application is allowed and the office order No. 9 issued under memo no. 74 dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure-3) and also office order no. 42 and memo no. 1596 dated 09.12.2017 (Annexure-3/A), are hereby, quashed and set aside to the extent the petitioner is concerned. The concerned respondent is directed to provide the 1st ACP from 13.07.2000 and 2nd ACP from 13.07.2012 respectively.

                  The payment shall be made after calculation within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.