Baidyanath Prasad vs State Of Bihar

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“1. That this writ application is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of first and second ACP from 9.8.1999 with all consequential benefits.”

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to approach the Respondent authorities for grant of first and second ACP with effect from 9.8.1999 and in support of his case, he relies on an order dated 18.6.2018, passed in CWJC No. 14609 of 2010 (Bijay Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by this Court, relevant paragraphs whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only reason for denial of the 1st and 2nd A.C.P. to the petitioner herein is the pendency of a departmental proceeding, as has been contended in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment reported in 2008(4) P.L.J.R. 244 (Ranjan Kumar Chauhan v. State of Bihar) to contend that in a similar situation where the petitioner of that case was denied grant of benefit of the A.C.P. Scheme on account of pendency of a departmental proceeding and a criminal proceeding, this Court had directed for considering the case of the said petitioner for granting the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

It is a trite law that the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme is not a promotion in the sense of the term of a vertical movement from a lower post to a higher post, but it is only a grant of certain monetary benefits on the same post on account of stagnation on the said post. In such view of the matter, the Respondent-authorities cannot deny the grant of benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme to the petitioner herein, especially, in view of the fact that there is no such notification / circular of the State Government which bars grant of the benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme on account of pendency of either the departmental proceeding or a criminal proceeding.

In such view of the matter, I find that the petitioner is entitled to be granted the benefits of the Assured Career Progression Scheme de-hors the fact that a C.B.I case is pending against him.”

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Patna, for grant of the benefits of first and second ACP, who shall, while deciding the claim/ entitlement of the petitioner, consider the aforesaid judgment, rendered in the case of Bijay Kumar Sinha (supra).

The writ petition stands disposed off.