IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8178 of 2010 ====================================================== Brijnandan Prasad, S/O Late Lallu Mahato, R/O Village Chandharia,P.S.- Jaitipur, P.S.-Ghosi, District-Jehanabad, Retired Irrigation Revenue Inspector, Sone High Level Canal Division, Bhabhua. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,Patna-1. 2. The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-1. 3. The Engineer In Chief (Middle), Water Resources Department,Govt. of Bihar, Irrigation Bhawan,Bailey Road,Patna-1. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department Dehri, Rohtas at Sasaram 5. The Executive Engineer, Sone High Level Canal Division,Bhabhua. 6. The Executive Engineer, Jal Path Pramandal,Gaya. 7. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Katari Hill Road, Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 3 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2010 declining to shift the date for grant of A.C.P. in pursuance to the representation filed by him as directed in C.W.J.C. No. 16489 of 2009. It is submitted that the impugned order states that for grant of A.C.P. the departmental survey and Amanat examination was required to be passed. The petitioner passed the same on 29.09.2007 and is entitled to ACP thereafter. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if his eligibility for A.C.P. arose on 09.08.1999 and the respondents did not hold the examination, the responsibility cannot be his. Those who have 2 passed the examination in the year 2008 have been granted A.C.P. with effect from 09.08.1999 causing hostile discrimination. Counsel for the respondents acknowledges from the counter affidavit that no examinations were held from 1999 till 2007 furnishing opportunity to the petitioner to appear at the same. On the issue of hostile discrimination, it is urged that it pertains to two different divisions. The defence of the respondents appears to be mindless, seeking to create a controversy and generate litigation were none really appears to exist. The Court is satisfied that the entire controversy relates to a purely administrative issue where the administrator declines to accept responsibility and take decisions but prefers that the Court takes decision on its behalf. Directions are issued to grant benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner from 09.08.1999 and actual monetary benefits be paid, less than that already paid, within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside to the extent that it declines the benefit of A.C.P. from 09.08.1999. The writ petition is disposed with observation and direction. Bhardwaj/- (Navin Sinha, J)