IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4954 of 2010 AJAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE UMESH CHANDRA PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DR. RAMESHWAR DAYAL PATH, BORING ROAD, P.S. S.K. PURI, PATNA-13. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI ANUP MUKHERJEE, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. SRI GIRISH SHANKAR SON OF NOT KNONWN, COMMISSIONERCUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. MR. MANISH KUMAR SON OF NOT KNOWN, COMMISSIONER PATNA NAGAR NIGAM, PATNA. 4. MR. N.C. JHA, SON OF NOT NOWN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WATER SUPPLY BRANCH, PATNA, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PATNA. ----------- 06. 20.07.2011 With reference to the show cause, supplementary show cause filed on behalf of opposite party nos.3 and 4 it is submitted that in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 7.7.2010, Annexure-1 case of the petitioner for grant of ACP was considered by the Patna Municipal Corporation and his claim for such grant has been rejected under order dated 16.7.2011 holding that his appointment in the Corporation on the post of Assistant Engineer was against unsanctioned post and he was allowed to continue in the Corporation on humanitarian ground. There being no sanctioned post available for the petitioner he is not entitled for grant of ACP benefit, as according to the authorities ACP benefit is allowed to an appointee who served on sanctioned post. Such submission has been noted only for the purpose that as and when petitioner proceeds to challenge the order dated 16.7.2011 the same may be considered in view of the fact that petitioner was 2 appointed in the PMC 27 years earlier and allowed to continue for 27 years, although no sanctioned post was available. Now when question of grant of ACP benefit arose then it is being investigated whether any sanctioned post was available in the PMC against which petitioner continued. ACP benefit is allowed to those who have rendered satisfactory service but could not be allowed promotion. In case, petitioner was appointed against unsanctioned post he should have been shown the door no sooner it came to light that his appointment was against non-sanctioned post. Having allowed the petitioner to continue in the service of the Corporation for 27 years may be against a post which was not sanctioned, authorities are required to consider him for grant of ACP benefit. The contempt petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 16.7.2011. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)