Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed by some members of the Medical Cadre, seeking directions to revise and refix their benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘DACP scheme’) in line with the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions, along with release of arrears and consequential entitlements, after the State shifted the cut-off date and withdrew earlier benefits, a Single Judge Bench of Ananda Sen, J., held that all similarly situated persons falling within the same class must be given the same benefits, irrespective of whether they filed litigation or not. The Court emphasised that the date which was fixed earlier was the only crucial date for the purpose of grant of DACP benefits, and there cannot be any other second date.
Background:
The case arose from the implementation of the DACP scheme for Medical Cadre employees. While the scheme was initially designed to extend career progression benefits in line with the 5th and 6th Pay Revisions, subsequent government actions altered its scope. The original cut-off date of 05-04-2002 and the grant of benefits from 29-10-2008 were later disturbed when the State, by Resolution dated 11-09-2013, shifted the cut-off date to 01-09-2008 and through Notification dated 15-01-2014, the DACP scheme benefits earlier granted were withdrawn.
Aggrieved employees challenged this withdrawal, but their writ petitions were dismissed. On appeal, the Division Bench, by judgment dated 02-08-2023, held that the shifting of the cut-off date was not proper and allowed the matter. The State carried the issue to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on 19-02-2024.
Consequently, the petitioners, who did not earlier approach the Court sought to claim the same benefits as those already granted before.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the date of DACP scheme was changed by the State by virtue of a Resolution which was ultimately set aside by the Division Bench of the Court in Shyam Sundar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 768. It was noted that the effect of the order was that the date which was fixed earlier was the only crucial date for the purpose of grant of DACP scheme and there cannot be any other second date. The Court highlighted that once a particular date has been fixed, all the persons who come within the zone of consideration must get the same benefit.
The Court observed that in the judgment of Shyam Sundar Singh (supra) which declared that the cut-off date was bad, it was not in personam and rather it was in rem. It was further noted that it was the policy decision of the State which was struck down which automatically revived the earlier policy. It was emphasised by the Court that when the particular policy was revived, all the persons, who were within the zone were entitled to get the benefit of the policy, no matter whether they approached the Court or not.
The Court referred to Ganesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Jharkhand1, wherein it was held that when in principle an entitlement of a group of persons has already been decided, it is immaterial as to who are the person who were appearing before the Court in the litigation. Benefits of the policy decision should be granted to all even if they are not a party to the litigation. The Court highlighted that denying benefits to similarly situated persons, who even if have not appeared before the Court, were entitled for same service benefits and the State could not deny the same, as they were not a separate category.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition while directing the respondents to grant similar benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons in terms of the Shyam Sundar Singh (supra) judgment, which already held that shifting of the cut-off date was not proper.
The Court, thus, ordered that consequential benefits be released within eight weeks from receipt of the order. It was further emphasised that since the Division Bench judgment of Shyam Sundar Singh (supra) was confirmed by the Supreme Court, all similarly situated persons falling within the same class must be given the same benefits, irrespective of whether they filed litigation or not. Accordingly, the petition stood allowed.
[Ram Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No.5953 of 2025, decided on 06-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vinay Kr. Tiwary, Advocate, Vishwanath Moon, Advocate
For the Respondent: Rahul Kamlesh, AC
1. Ganesh Chandra Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, Nutral Citation No.- 2025:JHHC:24327