IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3589 of 2010 1. RAMAYAN CHAUDHARY S/O SHRI BAIDYANATH CHAUDHARY R/O MOH RATANPURA,P.S.BHAGWAN BAZAR,CHAPRA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BANK COLONY,THANA ROAD,BHAGWAN BAZAR,P.O.+P.S.BHAGWAN BAZAR,DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA-841301 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY,REGISTRATION ,EXCISE CUM DRUGS CONTROL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY,FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT SIWAN ----------- 5. 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims the relief for grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- and Rs. 5000-8000/- respectively. He is stated to have superannuated as a Clerk from the office of Excise Superintendent on 31.12.2009. The respondents filed a counter affidavit denying his claim urging that the petitioner could not be recommended as he had not passed the requisite typing test and that confidential report for the last five years was wanting. The same paragraph next concludes that the case of the petitioner is pending awaiting required information and papers. If passing of the typing test was a mandatory requirement, the question of his case remaining pending for consideration does not arise and that can have its 2 application only with regard to his confidential reports. Therefore, even according to the pleadings of the respondents themselves they have kept his case pending for consideration because of non-availability of the confidential reports only. The counter affidavit is a bundle of contradictions. Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in Column-7 mentions the name of persons whose cases were pending due to absence of confidential reports for five years/absence of essential requirements. Colums-2, 16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 contains information in front of the names of the persons the reasons why they were ineligible, for not having passed the typing test or other departmental examination. The name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 1. There is no such recording in front of his name that he had not passed the typing test. Therefore, according to the documents of the respondents themselves, it is apparent that the deficiencies in consideration of his case related to non- availability of confidential reports only. The contention of the respondents that the persons noticed above were people who had retired and there was no occasion to keep their cases pending as distinct from the petitioner was the justification for adding necessary details against their names for not 3 having cleared the examination is an explanation which the Court refuses to accept in view of the clear recitals of the language in Column-7 of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In fact, on 16.9.2010, this Court had specifically noticed the aforesaid issue and directed the appearance of the Secretary to the Excise Commissioner. The Advocate General himself appeared on 17.9.2010 and fairly acknowledged that the counter affidavit was wanting in proper pleadings. The matter was adjourned at the request of the Advocate General. No further affidavit has been filed by the respondents despite adjournment granted again on 29.10.2010. In any event of the matter, if Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 9.3.2007 is clear and speaking in its language, no counter affidavit can add to it or detract from it. The submission of the counsel for the State that the petitioner has not stated anywhere that he has passed the typing test is best answered by observing that if the respondents have not satisfied the Court that they raised a valid objection with regard to the petitioner, there is no need for the petitioner to answer. This Court holds that there was no 4 requirement for the petitioner to pass the departmental typist examination in the assessment of the respondents themselves. All that was wanting is the confidential report of the past five years. The responsibility for that lies with the respondents. Let the respondents consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of 1st and 2nd A.C.P. and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Needless to State that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, all further necessary consequential orders including for payment of arrears, revision of his pension and payment of the revised pension and all other retiral dues shall be considered within the aforesaid period. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)