Most. Hemlata Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5584 of 2015 ====================================================== Most. Hemlata Devi Wife of Late Sadhu Saran Yadav. Resident of Village - Chiraiyatard, Prem Jeweller, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Jakkanpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar and Ors

2. The Chief Engineer Agrim Yojana Upbhag P.W.D. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Advance Planning Circle R.C. Department P.W.D. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Executive Engineer Bridge, Design Division No.3 Agrim Yojana Upbhag P.W.D. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Binode Bariar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Abbas Haider- Sc16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-02-2019 Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of benefits under Second Assured Career Progression Scheme.

2. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner stands admitted. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted as correspondence clerk from peon during his service within first five years therefore, the first ACP was not granted to the petitioner. The benefit of second ACP was due to the petitioner admittedly with effect from 09.08.1999. The respondents have placed on record the office order dated 26.07.2010 authorizing/ sanctioning benefits under the Second Assured Progression Scheme with effect from 09.08.1999 in the unrevised scale of pay 4500-7000/-.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5584 of 2015 dt.19-02-2019 2/2

3. The admitted claim of the petitioner with effect from 1999 has been finally sanctioned in the year 2010. The claim of the petitioner was inordinately delayed due to inaction on the part of the respondent authority. Now at this juncture when the petitioner had already retired way back on 31.05.2003, an amount of Rs. 4875/- is raised as being outstanding from the petitioner. On account of a meager alleged outstanding of Rs. 4875/-, the petitioner is not paid his dues under office order dated 26.07.2010.

4. Considering the fact that the respondents are responsible for inordinate delay, this Court would have considered awarding some interest on the admitted dues of the petitioner. However, this Court would direct that the benefits on account of office order dated 26.07.2010 be paid to the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner including the instant writ petitioner expeditiously and without any undue delay, without raising the demand of Rs. 4875/- if not already paid.

5. Writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observation.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Prakash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date