A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan allowed the writ petition filed by Shailesh Kumar Singh, setting aside the order rejecting his claim for the 3rd MACP benefit with Grade Pay of ₹4800.

The petitioner, who was appointed as a clerk in 1978, completed 30 years of service in 2008. Although he was initially granted the first and second ACP benefits in lower pay scales, those benefits were revised pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 2170 of 2015, under which he was granted the higher pay scales of ₹5000–8000 and ₹5500–9000. However, when the 3rd MACP benefit was extended, he was granted Grade Pay of ₹4600 instead of ₹4800. His representation seeking correction was rejected.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once he had been placed in the ₹5500–9000 pay scale on grant of the second ACP pursuant to the earlier High Court order, he was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4800 under the 3rd MACP Scheme. He further contended that similarly situated clerks in the erstwhile South Chotanagpur Division had already been granted the same benefit, and merely because he was posted in the newly carved-out Kolhan Division could not justify discriminatory treatment.

The State, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had been wrongly granted the higher ACP benefits under the earlier scheme.

Rejecting the State's stand, the Court observed that once the petitioner had already been granted the revised first and second ACP benefits in compliance with the earlier High Court judgment, it naturally followed that he was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4800 on grant of the third MACP.

The Court was particularly critical of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, who asserted that the earlier ACP benefits had been wrongly granted. The Court noted:

“The statement made in paragraph no.12 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondents is highly contemptuous... Once this fact has not been disputed, the deponent of supplementary counter affidavit cannot have audacity to make such statement that such benefit was wrongly granted.”

The Court further found that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's representation was cryptic and devoid of reasons, despite the petitioner having submitted a detailed representation. It reiterated that reasons supporting an administrative decision cannot subsequently be supplied through a counter affidavit.

Noting that similarly situated employees in the South Chotanagpur Division had been granted the higher benefit, the Court held that denying the same benefit to the petitioner merely because he was serving in the Kolhan Division amounted to hostile discrimination.

Holding that the action of the respondents was arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to grant the petitioner the benefit of the 3rd MACP in Pay Band-II (₹9300–34800) with Grade Pay of ₹4800 with effect from 1 September 2008, along with all consequential benefits.

Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(S) No. 4235 of 2021.

Appearance: Mr. Manoj Tandon, Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Mr. Shubham Kumar, Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, and Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra for the Petitioner. Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman for the Respondent.