IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3357 of 2010 1. MOHAMAD JAHAGIR ANSARI S/O LATE NIJAMUDIN ANSARI, SHORTHAND CLERK OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TUBEWELL CIRCLE, ARA, NEAR LOOK NO.- 11, BHOJPUR, ARA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY null MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ( SOUTH ) MINOR IRRIGATION DEPTT. AREA, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA- 14 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TUBEWELL CIRCLE, ARA, BHOJPUR For the Petitioner: Gopal Govind Mishra, Adv. For the Stated : Pramod Kumar, A.C. to S.C. I. ----------- 2/ 13/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed in the Water Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) on 4.6.1979. The Corporation having been dissolved his services were absorbed in the Minor Irrigation Department with effect from 13.8.1986. He was recommended for grant of first and second A.C.P. with effect from 8.6.1979 by order dated 17.6.2005. It has been allowed from 13.8.1986 excluding the period of service spent in the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner from paragraph 9 of the writ application submits that the respondents have taken into consideration the period of service in the Corporation for grant of first time bound promotion by order dated 9.6.1989 appended as - 2 - Annexure-7 to the writ application. If they have counted the period of his service in the Corporation for time bound promotion, there can be no justification not to compute the same for grant of A.C.P. benefits. Both are anti-stagnation measures. A counter affidavit, filed in a writ petition is expected to answer issues and not to leave questions unanswered. The Court is required to adjudicate after issues are raised by both sides. The counter affidavit in paragraph 9 acknowledges the grant of time bound promotion to the petitioner by taking into consideration the period of service in the Corporation. Both time bound promotion and grant of A.C.P. are anti-stagnation measures. The counter affidavit, is completely silent on why the period of service in the Corporation was not being taken into consideration for grant of A.C.P. benefit. Though paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit does give a suggestion of financial liabilities that may follow, but still does not place materials, orders, resolutions of the State Government for that reason not to grant A.C.P. benefits for the period spent in the Corporation with reasons for differentiation, from time bound promotion. These were purely administrative issues while it remained in the realm of the respondents. Once they had answered it, adjudication could arise. The counter - 3 - affidavit is completely inconclusive in nature and seeks to shift the burden on the Court to decide. There is no occasion for the Court to decide by adjudication till the respondents first decide. Let the respondents consider his claim for grant of A.C.P. benefits in light of the present discussion. If the respondents propose to rely on any further materials, they are required to furnish the same to the petitioner first by way of a show cause notice to reply within reasonable time so that he has the benefit of understanding what is passing the mind of the respondents and what issues he has to answer. Let the respondents then pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them. If they find justification in the claim or any part of the claim, it is expected that necessary consequential orders and payments, if any, shall be made within the same period. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)