IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15193 of 2007 Rajendra Prasad, S/o Late Lallu Lal Das, resident of Bhaisani Tola, P.S. Malsalami, Dist. Patna, Retd. Block Extension Educator, Primary Health Centre, Referral Hospital, Jargir, Dist. Nalanda. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. Director, Health (Family Planning), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 4. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda, Govt. Hospital Campus Biharsharif, at Nalanda. 5. In-charge Medical Officer, Referal Hospital, Rajgir, Dist. Nalanda. 6. Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda. 7. Accountant General, Govt. of Bihar, Birchand Patel Road, Patna. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 28.11.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has already been given the benefit of ACP, this Court must hold that the main grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. For the rest of the grievances arising out of the year 1983, this writ application must be held to be wholly belated and as such, this Court is not inclined to direct the respondents for making any payment under the head of suspension account. The petitioner, however, may still establish before the authority that any amount was actually deducted from his salary and to 2 which the petitioner was entitled for its refund. The last issue with regard to the payment of interest on the retiral dues with effect from 31.1.2000 cannot be mixed up with the issue of ACP, inasmuch as, the decision of ACP itself came in the year 1999 and after clarification by the Government Circular, it was implemented only in the year 2003 onwards. In that view of the matter, there would be no question of payment of interest on account of grant of any additional amount by way of enhancement of salary of the petitioner. That being so, since the main grievance of the petitioner as with regard to ACP has already been redressed and its actual monetary component has also been paid as asserted in the counter affidavit nothing more would survive for adjudication in this case. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)