IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10571 of 2009 1. SYED MOHAMMAD ANWARUL HAQUE, aged about 59 & ½ years, son of Late-Abdul Aziz, presently residing at Magistrate Colony, P.O.- Ashiana Nagar, P.S.-Rajiv Nagar, Patna, presently functioning as Loan Officer in the office of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd. 34-Ali Imam Path(Harding Road), Haj Bhawan, P.S.-Sachivalaya, District-Patna. 2. AWADH KISHORE PRASAD, aged about 49 years, son of late- Nageshwar Prasad, Madhukunj Apartment, P.S.-Patliputra, Patna- 800013, presently functioning as Account Officer in the Office of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd., 34, Harding Road, Haj Bhawan, Patna. 3. NEHAL ASHRAF, aged about 54 years, son of late-S.M. Mustafa, Sabzibagh, P.O.-Bankipu, P.S.-Pirbahore, Patna. Presently functioning as Private Secretary in the office of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd, 34, Harding Road, Haj Bhawan, Patna. 4. HEM CHANDRA MISHRA, aged about 49 years, son of late-Sushil Mishra, Shiv Puri, P.O.-Anisabad, P.S.-Gardanibag, Patna. Presently functioning as Administrative Officer in the office of Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation Ltd., 34, Harding Road, Haj Bhawan, Patna. ……Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation through its Managing Director, 34, Ali Imam Path, Harding Road, P.S.-Sachibalaya, Patna. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation, 34, Ali Imam Path (Harding Road), P.S.-Sachibalaya, Patna. ……Respondents. ----------- 02. 24.08.2009 Petitioners are the employees of the Bihar State Minorities Financial Corporation, a Corporation wholly owned and promoted by the State Government. The State Government promoted the scheme for assured career promotion (ACP) to its employees in lieu of actual promotion being granted or available to them. The Corporation in its Board meeting dated 17.05.2006 considered the matter and decided that ACP scheme was accepted and would be 2 implemented in the Corporation. To give effect thereto, the Screening Committee was constituted. The Screening Committee was given time up to 31.03.2007 to report on applicability of the said scheme to various employees of the Corporation. The said was communicated by memo No. 151 dated 01.03.2007 to the concerned. The Committee then met on 15.03.2007 and made its recommendations. The recommendations were restricted to employees who were in service. Petitioners were held entitled to ACP and their entitlements were also worked out in the said recommendations. Petitioners’ sole grievance is that the said recommendations of the Screening Committee though made almost one and half years back is gathering dust at the table of the Managing Director for oblique purpose. It is further submitted that in the meantime having got the report of the Screening Committee, the Managing Director instead of implementing the same requested the Department concerned for guidance. In the writ petition, it is clearly stated that the concerned Department responded and pointed out that the Board of Directors of the Corporation was competent in itself to take the decision in the matter. It is submitted that yet no decision is being taken. It is submitted that the Managing Director finds himself incompetent in the matter for reasons best known to him. 3 Sri. Himkar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation states on instructions, that the Managing Director is only being cautious in the matter as it has financial implications, otherwise has no problem with implementing the same and this Court may dispose of the writ petition with appropriate directions for its implementation. Having considered the matter, in my view, first thing that one must appreciate is that the Respondent Corporation is a statutory Corporation and an independent corporate entity and is an autonomous body. Its Board of Directors are the competent authority to take decisions in this matter. They have to manage their own finance. The Board of Directors is the supreme authority for the said purpose. Once the Board of Directors took a decision then the Managing Director could not make the decision subject to approval or guidance of the State Government. If he had any reservation in the matter, he could have raised the issue once again in the meeting of Board of Directors but having not done so and having got a committee constituted to insure its implementation, the Managing Director is not competent not to implement the decision of its Board of Directors rather he is bound to implement the decisions of the Board of Directors. Not doing so would be violating his own appointment for it is the duty of the Managing Director to 4 implement the decisions of the Board of Directors. He is one of the Directors in the Board of Directors. He is not above the Board of Directors. In the present case as Board of Directors have already taken a decision. The Committee having already forwarded the recommendations for its implementation in respect of ACP to the employees and the State Government having already told the Managing Director that he and his Board were competent to take decision in the matter, I see no legal reason on part of the Managing Director or the Corporation in withholding implementation of ACP Scheme to its employees. The formality of Screening already having been done, only paper formality of approving and implementing the same remains. Let that be done immediately. The Screening Committee’s recommendation is Annexure-5 which shall be implemented forthwith. The writ petition is thus allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)