IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 192 of 2009 SITA RAM MAHTO, SON OF LATE GONOUR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – MAULAGANJ, POLICE STATION – DARBHANGA (TOWN), DISTRICT – DARBHANGA …………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DARBHANGA MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, LAHERIASARAI, DARBHANGA 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA …………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 05. 23.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as the counsel, appearing for the Accountant General. Petitioner has retired from the post of Ambulance Driver on 30.04.2007. His grievance is that the monetary benefit of first and second A.C.P. has not been paid to him, despite the fact that he was granted first and second A.C.P., vide Memo No. 923, dated 23.03.2006 with effect from 09.08.1999. Grievance of the petitioner is that his arrears of salary on account of first and second A.C.P. have not been paid to him and his pension also could not be revised due to non-fixation of his salary in the revised scale. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent, Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, from where the petitioner has 2 retired from the post of Ambulance Driver. It has been stated in the Counter Affidavit that petitioner was promoted to the post of Ambulance Driver on 01.04.1970 and the same was confirmed vide letter no. 5218, dated 10.08.1973. He was allowed two A.C.P.s vide order, contained in Memo No. 923, dated 23.03.2006. His salary was also fixed in the revised scale on account of two A.C.P.s allowed to him. But after petitioner’s retirement, when his pension papers were sent to Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna, for approval, an objection was raised with regard to the first A.C.P., allowed to the petitioner on the ground that he had been given one promotion, as such he is entitled to get only second A.C.P. benefit. Considering the objection of the Accountant General, the previous letter, granting two A.C.P.s’ benefit were modified. The petitioner was allowed one A.C.P. His salary was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- and, accordingly, his pension papers were also amended and entry was also made in his service book. The amount, which was paid in excess on account of two A.C.P.s were also revised and deducted. From the Counter Affidavit, it transpires that the benefit of A.C.P. has been allowed to the petitioner in accordance with law. His salary has been fixed 3 accordingly and all payments made to the petitioner, for which he is entitled in the eye of law. Considering the fact that the relief, for which the petitioner has come before this Court, has been redressed, this application is disposed of. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)