IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11371 of 2008 MEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 04/02/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the admissible dues of the father of the petitioner have been paid. However, he submits that on account of delayed payment interest @ 5% per annum as admissible by circular dated 30th April, 2002 and office order dated 1.8.1998 of the office of the Comptroller has not been paid to the petitioner. He also contends that the adverse remark was entered into the service book of the father of the petitioner long back and it lost its force before the case of the father of the petitioner was considered for grant of benefits of A.C.P. Therefore, the benefit of A.C.P. could not be denied to the father of the petitioner on account of said remark. However, this stand has not been specifically taken by the petitioner in her rejoinder to the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authorities of the University for payment of - 2 - interest on delayed payment as admissible to her in view of the said circular and office order of the University. She shall also make a claim for grant of benefit of A.C.P. to her father on the ground that the adverse remark given to her father has lost its force and therefore, the case of the father of the petitioner was required to be considered for grant of A.C.P. on its merit and in accordance with law. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within one month from today, the University authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in respect of payment of interest @ 5% per annum on delayed payment as well as in respect of grant of A.C.P. to the father of the petitioner in accordance with law within two months thereafter. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)