Patna High Court
Nand Kishor MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner was not entitled to the M.A.C.P. benefit as he had not completed 30 years of qualifying service by his retirement, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Nand Kishor Mahto, was initially appointed as a temporary Mali in 1976 and later as a regular Peon in 1984, retiring in 2011. He claimed that his service from 1976 should be counted towards the 30‑year qualifying period for the Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) scheme, seeking the grant of the third M.A.C.P. benefit and the quashing of a letter denying it. The State argued that only regular service from the 1984 appointment counted, and that Rule 4(4) of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003 excludes casual or daily‑wage service from such calculations. The court examined the service records, noted that the petitioner’s first promotions were granted based on the earlier service but that the authorities later recognized the discrepancy, and held that he had not completed 30 years of qualifying service by his retirement date. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, also disposing of any pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether temporary service as a Mali from 1976 can be counted towards the 30‑year qualifying service for M.A.C.P. benefits.
- Whether the authorities erred in denying the petitioner the third M.A.C.P. benefit.
- Interpretation of Rule 4(4) of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003 regarding exclusion of casual or daily‑wage service.
- Whether Letter No.17 dated 18/01/2022 should be quashed.
Subjects
- M.A.C.P. Scheme
- A.C.P. Scheme
- service tenure
- temporary appointment
- government employee promotion
- civil writ jurisdiction
- employment law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7681 of 2022
======================================================
Nand Kishor Mahto S/o Paras Nath Mahto, Resident of Vill-Mithapur, Post-
Garkha, Dist-Saran, Bihar-841311.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Regional Deputy Director, Education, Patna Division, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Patna, District Patna.
5. Treasury Officer, Patna.
6. Principal, Government Girls Intermediate (plus 2 Level) School,
Gardanibagh, Patna-2.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Ms. Sadhna Parashar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadaw, G.P.23
Mr. Arvind Kumar, A.C. to G.P.23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-04-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:
“(i) That letter no 17 dated 18/01/2022
(Annexure-6) Issued under the signature of
respondent no.-3 be quashed.
(ii) Respondents be directed to grant
M.A.C.P. to the petitioner as he has completed his
service of 30 years on 20/12/2006 as his initial
appointment was on 20/12/1976 on the post of Mali
under Contingent Mining and the said period have
been approved by the learned commissioner after
due inquiry while confirming his first Time Bound
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
2/8
Promotion.
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ
petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Mali
on purely temporary basis vide Memo No.659, dated 20.12.1976,
issued under the signature of the then Principal, Government Girls
High School, Gardanibagh, Patna in the pay scale of Rs.155-1-
160-2-190 along with the applicable allowances. Subsequently,
after retirement of one Peon in the said school, the petitioner was
appointed on the said post vide Letter No.19, dated 31.01.1984.
After completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner was granted
the benefits of upgradation w.e.f. 20.12.1986 and his pay scale was
fixed at Rs.800-1150/- vide Letter No.6271-6355, dated
11.11.1992, issued under the signature of the School Inspector-
cum-Deputy Director, Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
After completing 12 years of service, the petitioner became
eligible for first A.C.P. and vide Letter No.1802 vi (02), dated
23.03.2006, issued under the signature of the School Inspector-
cum-Deputy Director, Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, the
benefits of first A.C.P. was granted to the petitioner w.e.f.
09.08.1989 and the benefits of second A.C.P. was also granted
after completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 20.12.2000.
Subsequently, the Modified Assured Career Progression
(M.A.C.P.) Scheme came into effect from year 2010, wherein it
has been provided that three upgradation will be granted on
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
3/8
completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service. It is the case of the
petitioner that since he had completed 30 years of service in the
year 2006 itself, he became entitled for grant of M.A.C.P. benefits
w.e.f. 2006. The petitioner superannuated from service on
31.10.2011. After retirement of the petitioner, vide Memo No.285,
dated 11.11.2013, issued under the signature of the Secretary to the
Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, the first time bound
promotion, granted to the petitioner and similarly situated
employees, was confirmed. From perusal thereof, it would
transpire that the date of first time bound promotion of the
petitioner was mentioned as 20.12.1986, i.e., 10 years from the
date of his joining on the post of Mali. Subsequently, vide Letter
No.17, dated 18.01.2022, issued under the signature of the
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna
addressed to the Principal, Government Girls High School,
Gardanibagh, Patna, it was informed that since the petitioner
completed 30 years of service on 01.02.2014 and he retired from
service on 31.10.2011, therefore, the benefits of M.A.C.P. has not
been granted to the petitioner on account of his not completing 30
years of service, prior to his retirement.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as a Mali on temporary basis in 1976
and subsequently he was appointed on the post of Peon in 1984,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
4/8
therefore, his services should have been counted from 1976 itself
and the authorities concerned, while granting the benefits of first
and second A.C.P., have counted his services from 1976. The
learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that not granting
the benefits of M.A.C.P. to the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary
since on the one hand, while granting the benefits of first and
second A.C.P., the authorities have taken into consideration the
services rendered by the petitioner on the post of Mali, on the
other hand, he was denied the benefit of M.A.C.P. on the ground
that he has not completed 30 years of service, on the date of his
retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that as per Rule 4 of the A.C.P. Scheme, 2003, it has been provided
that if a person, who was working as a Sweeper and subsequently
appointed on the post of Peon, whose pay scale is identical, his
past services shall be counted for the purposes of granting A.C.P.,
however the respondent authorities have not taken into
consideration Rule 4 of the A.C.P. Scheme, 2003 and had denied
the said benefit to the petitioner, although he was working in the
same pay scale of Mali, prior to his appointment on the post of
Peon in 1984.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondents-State submits that the petitioner was
temporarily engaged on the post of Mali under contingent mining
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
5/8
vide Letter No.659, dated 20.12.1976 and after retirement of the
regular Peon, he was appointed as a Peon vide Letter No.19, dated
31.01.1984. He was granted first time bound promotion w.e.f.
20.12.1986, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner
was appointed in regular establishment on 01.02.1984. He further
submits that there is a statutory provision in the M.A.C.P. Scheme,
2010 to give the benefits of M.A.C.P. to those employees who
have completed 30 years of qualifying service, however in case of
the petitioner since he was appointed on 01.02.1984 and retired on
31.10.2011, therefore, he was not granted the benefits of M.A.C.P.
on completion of 30 years of service, since as per his date of
joining, i.e., 01.02.1984, he would have completed 30 years of
service on 01.02.2014. The authorities concerned taking into
consideration have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for
grant of M.A.C.P. benefits on completion of 30 years of service.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, relying on
the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner was appointed on the
vacant post of Peon vide Letter No.19, dated 31.01.1984 and the
so called appointment on the post of Mali cannot be treated as an
ad hoc employment, rather it was purely a daily wage
appointment, for which payment has been made from contingent
head and it cannot be counted for the purposes of regular service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
6/8
He further submits that admittedly without noticing the above, the
petitioner was granted his first time bound promotion w.e.f.
20.12.1986, vide Letter No.1802, dated 23.03.2006 w.e.f. 1999
and the second A.C.P. w.e.f. 20.12.2000.
6. The learned counsel for the State further submits
that the A.C.P./M.A.C.P. Screening Committee in its meeting dated
15.11.2021 examined the claim of the petitioner for grant of 3 rd
M.A.C.P., however after considering the same rejected his claim
on the ground that since he has not completed 30 years of service
on his date of retirement, he is not entitled for the benefits of
M.A.C.P. The name of the petitioner is mentioned at serial no.23
of the proceeding of the meeting dated 15.11.2021. The learned
counsel for the State further, by referring to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of the Respondent No.3 on 01.12.2025, submits
that no sanctioned and vacant post of Mali was available in the
school and the petitioner was working as a daily wager, for which
payments have been made from contingent head. He further
submits that as per Rule 4 of the A.C.P. Rules, 2003, which deals
with the eligibility and conditions for grant of the A.C.P., wherein
Section 4(1) says that if a person working as a Sweeper is
recruited on the post of Orderly, the scale of pay of which is same,
previous service shall be counted. However, explanation to Rule
4(4) says that the service rendered on casual or daily wages
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
7/8
basis/contract basis or temporary basis shall not be counted for the
purpose of benefit of financial progression under the scheme,
therefore, the petitioner has been rightly denied the benefits of
M.A.C.P.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the materials available on records, this Court finds that
admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a Mali on temporary
basis on 20.12.1976 and subsequently vide letter dated 31.01.1984,
he was appointed on the post of Peon in the concerned school,
since no vacant/sanctioned post of Mali was available in the
school concerned. The petitioner gave his joining on 01.02.1984
and until his superannuation on 31.10.2011, he worked on the said
post of Peon. The petitioner was granted the benefit of first time
bound promotion on completion of 10 years of service and
subsequently was granted the benefits of A.C.P. w.e.f. 1999 and
the second A.C.P. in 2000. It is not in dispute that the petitioner
retired on 31.10.2011 and prior to retirement, he did not complete
the service of 30 years from the date of his appointment on the
post of Peon, i.e., 01.02.1984. It has been admitted by the
respondent authorities in their counter affidavit that the first time
bound promotion and other benefits, i.e., first A.C.P. and second
A.C.P., which was granted to the petitioner, calculating his service
from 20.12.1976, was without noticing the fact that the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.7681 of 2022 dt.09-04-2026
8/8
was appointed on 01.02.1984. The authorities later on discovered
the discrepancy and, therefore, have rightly rejected the claim of
the petitioner for grant of M.A.C.P. benefits since prior to his
retirement, he has not completed 30 years of service, which he
would have completed on 01.02.2014. During his entire service
period, the petitioner never raised any grievance with regard to not
counting his past service and happily accepted whatever was given
to him.
8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.