IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18292 of 2009 1. Smt.Lekha Devi W/O Late Dukh Mochan Mishra R/O Vill.- Rahaimeena, P.O.- Haldharahat, P.S.- Tarabari, Distt.- Araria Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Agriculture Production Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The Treasury Officer, Araria 4. The Block Development Officer, Sikti, Araria 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ----------- 4. 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner’s husband was deceased on 24.4.1997. The petitioner came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 12478 of 2005 for the service dues of the deceased. On 1.7.2008 disposing the application the Court directed consideration of the claims under four different heads as elucidated in the order. Shree Ojha for the petitioner acknowledges that relief under the head “gratuity” has been complied with. He next acknowledged the correctness of the statements made in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit dated 5.9.2011 with regard to the payments made under the Group Insurance Scheme. It is however submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to examine if the payments are fully inconsonance with the statutory scheme and if there are outstandings, the respondents may 2 consider the representation. The Court considers the prayer very reasonable and directs that if the petitioner relies upon any statutory provisions with regard to any remaining claims of the Group Insurance it shall be paid in accordance with law. If the respondents are not satisfied of the justification for the same, they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind. On the issue of the second time bound promotion Shree Ojha submits from Annexure-B itself dated 5.9.2011 that the claims cannot be left in the lurch. If the eligibility for time bound promotion was acquired on 23.3.1996 and the petitioner’s husband was deceased before promulgation of the circular dated 8.2.1999 abolishing time bound promotion retrospectively from 1.1.1996, the respondents cannot urge that the A.C.P. scheme came on 25.6.2003 to be implemented from 9.8.1999 making the deceased a looser at both ends. Counsel for the State submits that the period in between from 1.1.1996 to 9.8.1999 and the manner in which it has to be treated may be a matter for policy decision by the State Government. The counter affidavit does not deal with that aspect. 3 The Court has considered the submissions of the parties more particularly with regard to Clause 11 of the circular dated 8.2.1999 regulating revisions of the pay scale. Prima facie the petitioner appears to be having a claim that the deceased cannot be left in the lurch and be denied benefits both under the time bound promotion scheme as also A.C.P. The matter is therefore remanded to respondent no. 1 to take an appropriate policy decision in the peculiar facts of the case, unless such a policy decision has already been taken. Let this order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in all its aspect. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)