IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18895 of 2010 MURLIDHAR SAH, SON OF RAM DAYAL SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANHAULI, POLICE STATION- MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAVAN, PATNA. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD, PANT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKASH BHAVAN, PATNA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 22.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and the Bihar State Agriculture Produce Marketing Board (Dissolved) (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 3699 dated 29.7.2009 passed by the functionaries of the State Government, whereunder his request for promotion on the higher post of Assistant/Surveyor has been rejected together with his request for payment of special pay for holding the higher post of Assistant/Surveyor during the period between 2 5.8.1980- 31.7.2004. Under the impugned order further request of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P has also been rejected. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, as also having perused the Annexures appended with the writ petition, it is evident that petitioner is questioning the direction of the State Government not to pay the special pay for holding the higher post for the period between 5.8.1980- 31.7.2004 with reference to the different orders passed by the functionaries of the Board contained in Annexure-7 series. I have not examined the contents of those orders but according to the petitioner under orders Annexure-7 series he has been asked to discharge the duties of the higher post of Assistant/Surveyor by the competent authority of the Board and he having discharged the duties of the higher post is required to be paid special pay as during the aforesaid period between 5.8.1980-31.7.2004. Without examining the contents of the orders Annexure-7 series, I grant liberty to the petitioner to question the findings recorded in paragraph „kha‟ of the order dated 29.7.2009, Annexure-1 with reference to the orders Annexure-7 series 3 to the writ petition. The competent authority of the State Government should consider the documents contained in Annexure-7 series and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation, annexing a copy of my order. Alongwith the representation, petitioner is at liberty to even place before the competent authority, additional documents which are not part of this writ petition. The request of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P which has been refused in paragraph „ga‟ of the impugned order should also be reconsidered in the light of the office order dated 7.12.2004, Annexure-8 of the Managing Director of the Board or any subsequent order passed by the State Government in this regard, as early as possible, in any case within the aforesaid time of two months. 4. The writ application is accordingly, disposed of. Ibrar/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)