IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13084 of 2011 Hari Nandan Yadav S/O Late Netilal Yadav R/O Vill.- Sahugrah Tola Diwari, P.S. and Distt.- Madhepura Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Balmikinagar, Distt.- West Champaran. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Nath Jha. For the State: M/S. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, GP-14 and Subodh Kumar, AC to GP-14. ------ 02. 12.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The reason for filing of the present writ application by the petitioner is that despite several representations having been filed by the petitioner before the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Balmiki Nagar, West Champaran as well as having marked copies to the Chief Engineer, Mechanical Division, Water Resources Department, respondent No.2, between the year 2009-10 for grant of ACP, nothing has been done by the respondents on this score. Petitioner retired from the post of Sr. Mechanic, Grade-II, from the Mechanical Division, Gandak Project, Balmiki Nagar on 31.1.2003. According to him, since the benefit of ACP though notified in the later part of 2003, is applicable to the employees from the year 1999 itself, petitioner does have right to claim such benefit but as usual, respondents are not 2 concerned or bothered about the employees who have already superannuated as no decision is being taken. Since no adjudication of law is required to be made at this stage in the present writ application, it is disposed of with a clear direction upon respondent no.2 that in case petitioner files a fresh application for grant of ACP with a copy of this order, his claim will be examined and a decision be taken within three months and communicated to the petitioner. It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner is found to be in order, benefit will accrue in the same time frame including revision in the pension, if any, or else a speaking order with regard to the reason for rejection will have to be communicated within the same time frame. The writ application stands disposed of with above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)