AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has filed the present wit petition with the following relief/s :-
For commanding the respondents for granting benefit of 3 MACP with effect from 30/04/2015, 5/9/15, 26/4/15, 3/5/15 and 3/5/15 considering the petitioners are continuing for more than 30 years of service continuously on the post of clerk and peon respective.
And also for necessary relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law as well as facts of case.”
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed and, by virtue thereof, a letter bearing No. 1397 dated 31.07.2026, annexed as Annexure P/6, has been brought on record, whereby similarly situated persons have been granted the benefit with effect from 24.06.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are also claiming the same relief as has been granted to the similarly situated persons vide Annexure P/6.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., passed in CWJC No. 18082 of 2010 on 21.06.2018, whereby similarly situated employees were granted the benefits of First ACP and Second ACP.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are claiming the aforesaid relief on the ground of parity, as similarly situated employees, who were working as Clerks, have already been granted the same benefit vide Annexure P/6, particularly those mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, on the other hand, submits that the Accountant General has raised an objection to the grant of such benefit on the ground that some of the petitioners were not working against sanctioned posts.
Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioners are retired employees and the benefit of financial progression had been approved by the concerned Committee. However, while such benefit was extended to certain employees who were in service, the cases of those employees who had retired were not considered, though their effective dates were identical.
It further transpires that, in view of the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar (supra), the issue raised by the petitioners requires consideration on the ground of parity, as under :-
“The present petition has been filed for grant of first A.C.P. w.e.f. 24.06.1997 and second A.C.P. w.e.f. 24.06.2009.
The respondents no. 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit in the present case and in paragraph no. 13, it has been stated that the appointment of 124 IIIrd grade employees of Nawada judgeship was questioned by the Accountant General, Bihar and the matter is pending before the Law Department since the year 2008. This is a very peculiar situation wherein the petitioner has been denied the benefits of first and second A.C.P., although he is entitled for the same and his claim has not been denied by the respondents, however merely on the pretext that the appointment of the petitioner and others have been questioned by the Accountant General and the matter is pending before the Law Department since more than a decade, the benefits have been sought to be denied and it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the benefits would be given after the opinion of the Law Department is received.
The rights of the petitioner cannot be trampled indefinitely on one pretext or the other, hence this Court finds that, pending decision to be taken by the State Government regarding the veracity of the appointment of the petitioner herein, the benefits of the first and second A.C.P. should be granted to the petitioner herein within a period of 6 weeks from today.
The writ petition is allowed.”
In the aforesaid circumstances, and upon perusal of the decision in Ajit Kumar (supra) as well as Annexure P/6, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and take a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners in the light of Clause 4(C) of the Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011, within a period of 90 days from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order.
The present writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction, subject to the decision to be taken by the State Government regarding the veracity of the appointment of the petitioners herein.