IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8744 of 2009 MOSTT.CHANDRA LEKHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SITA RAM CHAUDHARY, R/V AND POST DIGHRA, P.S. SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR-----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, ACCOUNTS ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTORATE PROVIDENT FUND, PANT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE PROVIDENT FUND, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, PANT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 6. THE DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR-----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 28.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the widow of late Sita Ram Chaudhary, who superannuated with effect from 30.4.2002 while serving as Head Clerk in the office of the District Provident Fund Officer, Samastipur. Her husband died on 17.12.2002. She had requested the Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga to consider the case of her husband for grant of Assured Career Progression with effect from 9.8.1999 in terms of the resolution of the State Government dated 25.6.2003, Annexure-6 and amended subsequently, vide resolution dated 28.1.2008, Annexure-7. Aforesaid request of the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner under letter No. 881 dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-2 and communicated to the petitioner by the District provident Fund Officer, Samastipur under letter No. 235 dated 9.5.2009, Annexure-4. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ACP benefit to her husband has been rejected on the ground that he has not passed the departmental examination - 2 - and while rejecting such prayer the learned Commissioner has not noticed the circular of the State Government whereunder exemption for passing the departmental examination is to be allowed to those who have attained the age of 50 years and on this ground counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court should interfere in the matter and after setting aside the instructions of the Commissioner dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-2 should ask the Commissioner to re-consider the matter. I am not inclined to do so as the claim of the petitioner appears to be stale. Husband of the petitioner retired on 30.4.2002 and died on 17.12.2002 and until the date of his retirement and death he never requested the authorities to consider his case for grant of exemption from appearing in the departmental examination. After the retirement and death his case cannot be considered for grant of exemption. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)