IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22192 of 2011 Jagdish Jha, son of Late Ram Padarath Jha, Resident of M.I.G. House No. 112, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station, Patrakar Nagar, Patna, District - Patna ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Null Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna., Police Station- Sachivalaya Thana, Patna, District- Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Bihar State Housing Board Through Its Managing Director-6 Bir Chand Patel Path, Police Station- Sachivalaya Thana, Patna, District- Patna. 5. The Managing Director, Bihar State Housing Board-6, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 6. The Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board-6, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Patna Circle, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna. ……………… Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to G.P.-17 For the Respondent: Mr. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate ************* 02. 16.12.2011 Failure on the part of respondent-Housing Board to extend the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner, who happens to be a retired employee now is the reason for his approaching the Court, specially when some kind of decision was taken to extend this benefit in installment, but even that has not accrued in his favour till date. Petitioner has moved the Managing Director of the Housing Board on many occasions. One such application seems to be dated 16.06.2008, contained in Annexure – 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that in similar circumstance a direction has been issued by the Court upon the Board to consider the claim of such petitioner and take a decision 2 within a reasonable time-frame as well as pay the benefit, if it is payable to him. Since there is no legal adjudication on any larger question of law required to be made, but it is a case of mere inaction, no opinion is expressed on the matter on merit. Writ is disposed of after hearing counsel for the parties with a direction upon the Managing Director of the Housing Board that on production of a copy of this Order, the authority shall consider the claim of the petitioner and do the needful with regard to payment of his rightful claim within a period of three months. If there is some legal impediment, the reason thereof shall also be communicated to the petitioner within the same time-frame. Writ stands disposed of with above direction. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)