IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8088 of 2010 Ramesh Chandra Das S/o Late Musaheb Lal Das, resident of village Balour, P.O. and P.S. Manigachhi, District Darbhanga………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Pramandal, Darbhanga. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Project, Sakari, Madhubani. 5. The Accountant General, Government of Bihar, Patna……………………………………..…………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Chandrashekhar, Sr. Advocate with M/s Pankaj Kr. Sinha & Arun Kr. Das, Advocates For the State: Mr. Sandip Singh, A.C. to G.P.9 For Accountant General: Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.2, Advocate 2 09.03.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefits of A.C.P. scheme, in respect of which Rules came into force in 2003, and the scheme was made effective from 09.08.1999 and for consequential revision of his pension and other 2 benefits to which he may be found entitled. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of letter contained in Memo no.1510 dated 20.07.2009, as contained in Annexure-9, by which he has been denied the benefits on the ground that his services were not confirmed. The case of the petitioner is that earlier petitioner was appointed as Chainman with the Land Acquisition Department sometime in 1966. Thereafter he enhanced his qualification by completing the course of ‘Amanat’. Accordingly, after he was declared successful in the departmental examination, he was appointed by the respondents on the post of Amin vide Memo No.3681 dated 01.08.1975. He continued as such and was given regular pay scale, increments and all admissible benefits of the post till he took voluntary retirement with effect from 29.02.2000 on account of his health problems. After superannuation, petitioner’s pension etc. was fixed, 3 calculated and paid along with other benefits on the basis of pay-scale in which he had superannuated and pay which he had drawn. Petitioner is still getting the same regularly. However, when the Rules of A.C.P. came into force in 2003 effective from 09.08.1999, a date prior to his date of superannuation, petitioner became entitled for the same. Therefore he applied for grant of benefits of A.C.P. which has been denied to him by the impugned Annexure-9 dated 20.07.2009. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that all through service period, petitioner was treated as regular employee, continued on sanctioned cadre post of Amin, continued to get benefits of the post as a regular employee till he superannuated. Therefore, respondents cannot deny him the benefits of A.C.P., after his superannuation, on the ground that his services were not regularized. Counter affidavit has been filed 4 along with which Rules of A.C.P. have been annexed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rules provide that for the purpose of grant of benefits of A.C.P., period of regular service of a Government servant shall only be counted. Since petitioner’s services had not been regularized, he would not be entitled to those benefits. This stand of the respondents is not acceptable to the Court. The validity of initial appointment of the petitioner is not being disputed by the respondents. Respondents continued the petitioner for almost 25 years in their service and took work from him. During his service period, he was granted all the benefits of regular employee to which the respondents had no objection. If the respondents did not take up the matter of regularization of services of the petitioner for 25 years and allowed him to superannuate from his services, fault lies with the respondents. The moment an employee after long service 5 is allowed to superannuate from Government service drawing pay in the regular pay-scale of the post, respondents cannot afterwards deny that the employee was not a regular employee. If any question in respect of regularization, or otherwise, or in respect of irregular service of a government servant, or in respect of his illegal appointment is required to be raised, the authorities of the Government are duty bound to raise the same only during service period of employee and come to a decision, and not after taking service from him till the date of his superannuation and allowing him to superannuate as a regular government employee. In the circumstances, this Court finds that reasonings assigned in the impugned Annexure-9 for denying benefits of A.C.P. to the petitioner are arbitrary and unconscionable. As a result, the said Annexure-9 is quashed. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as their regular employee 6 and to have superannuated from service in that capacity and grant benefits of A.C.P. scheme, as he may be found entitled under the Rules. Monetary benefits in this respect and consequential revision in the pension etc. of the petitioner and monetary benefits thereof shall also be done and paid within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)