Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing of the office order dated 29.08.2012, relating to rejection of representation of the petitioner and for a direction to the respondents to grant petitioner the benefits of 3rd M.A.C.P. from 30.04.2009 after completion of 30 years of service as per the resolution of the Finance Department, State of Jharkhand and for a direction to the respondents to forthwith release all retiral dues on the basis of the last pay certificate, and for a direction to the respondents to shift the date of exemption from the date of passing of the departmental examination from 16.10.2004 to 10.01.2002 as the petitioner after completion of 50 years of age and to grant the benefits of 1st A.C.P. w.e.f. 10.01.2002 and consequently, the benefits of 2nd A.C.P. be shifted accordingly and for a direction to the respondents for quashing of the letter dated 04.07.2014, wherein the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,58,073/ - in the Treasury, which has been paid excess to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay.
(2.) Sans details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that, initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant on 30.04.1979 in the office of the Advocate General, Govt. of Bihar and after completion of 60 years of age, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011 from the post of Sec. Officer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Departmental Screening Committee on the basis of the Resolution dated 14.08.2002, decided to give benefit of 2nd A.C.P. to the petitioner from 16.10.2004 i.e. from the date from which the petitioner had been exempted from appearing in the departmental examination in the light of the departmental resolution dated 15.05.1992. The Resolution dated 14.08.2002, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand envisages in para (IV) that if any Government servant fulfills all the criterias and completes 24 years in regular service and has not been given two or one regular promotion, then he will be directly given the benefits of 2nd A.C.P. and the same has been extended to the petitioner from the date of his exemption from the departmental examination. The memo dated 16.10.2004 exempts the petitioner from appearing in the departmental examination on attaining the 50 years' of age. The grant of 2nd A.C.P. from 16.10.2004 has been confirmed vide Memo dated 12.10.2011, since the petitioner had already completed 24 years in regular service. The Modified Assured Career Progression, in short, referred to as the 'M.A.C.P.' was adopted by the State Government, which inter alia, stipulates, if any Government employee either had received two promotions or has been granted the benefit of the old A.C.P. by getting 2nd A.C.P. after 24 years of regular service, then he should be given the benefit of 3rd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service, provided he has not been given their promotion in this grade. To the utter surprise and dismay, vide order dated 25.01.2012 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the respondents changed the date of grant of 1st A.C.P. and the 2nd A.C.P. to the detriment of the petitioner without issuing any show -cause and that too after superannuation of the petitioner.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2012, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ application being W.P. (S) No. 1223 of 2012 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2012 with liberty to the respondents -State to take action in accordance with law so far grant of A.C.P. benefit is concerned if the respondents so decide, but only after a show -cause notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide office order dated -29.08.2012, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, the respondents rejected the representation filed by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by supporting their earlier office order dated 25.01.2012, by which the respondents had changed the date of grant of 1st A.C.P. and the 2nd A.C.P. to the disadvantage of the petitioner and the said order is under challenge in this writ application.;