IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5645 of 2009 Shyam Babu Gope, son of late Shadhu Gope, resident of Mohalla – Sherulapur Adami Gaon, Shastri Nagar, P S – Shastri Nagar, District – Patna - Petitioner Versus 1 Patna Municipal Corporation through its Mayor, Budh Marg, Patna 2 The Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna 3 The Chief Engineer, Water Supply Section, Patna Water Board, Patna 4 The Executive Officer, Water Supply Section, Patna Water Board, Patna 5 The Finance Officer, Water Supply Section, Patna Water Board, Patna - Respondents ----------- 3 02.09.2009 On behalf of petitioner, it was mentioned that the present case is identical to CWJC No 6901 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Court on 09.07.2009 and, as such, with consent of parties, the present application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee of the Patna Municipal Corporation and was in the Patna Water Board which is now Water Supply Section of the Patna Municipal Corporation. He has been in service for over 20 years. It appears that the Patna Municipal Corporation and the Permanent Empowered Standing Committee thereof took a decision in the year, 2007 granting Assured Career Progression (ACP) to all eligible Class-IV employees of the Corporation. An order to that effect was issued by the Town Commissioner dated 24.08.2007 and is Annexure-1. It was circulated to all concerned. Accordingly, petitioner, who was entitled to the said first ACP, was considered and ACP was granted by the drawing and disbursing authority after proper verification by pay fixation certificate dated 15.07.2008 with effect from 09.08.1999. Petitioner was, 2 accordingly, paid the arrears. Petitioner then filed his claim with regard to the second ACP which he was entitled to but instead of granting the second ACP for which there was no plausible reason to disallow the same, an office order was issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Supply Section of the Corporation on 17.04.2009 whereby the ACP granted, inter alia, to the petitioner was withdrawn and recovery ordered (Annexure-4). This is what has brought the petitioner to this Court. Heard the parties. Having considered the matter, all this Court can record is that all is not well in the Corporation. There is no denial that petitioner was entitled to the first and the second ACP. There is no denial that the Corporation took a valid decision to grant ACP to Class- IV employees of the Corporation and petitioner is one of the persons who was entitled thereto. All that is said for withdrawal of the ACP already granted and recovery of the money is that it was not granted with the approval of the Town Commissioner. In other words, what is said is instead of person A, it was by person B though the entitlement and grant is not in question. It having been granted by A, it is cancelled and recovery has to be ordered to be reimbursed after B grants approval. This, apart from being arbitrary, is shameless act on part of the Corporation. This court wonders what is behind this. To further compound the matter, it is stated that large number of Class-IV employees have been granted ACP now. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that merely because he had come to this Court the order is not recalled and the grant not being approved. Authorities apparently 3 want people to come to them rather than Courts for redressal of their grievances for which grievance they themselves are responsible. Court again wonders why. It is mere deliberate calculated harassment to Class-IV employees which the Court cannot ignore. In such a situation, I am left with no option but to quash the communication/order of the Chief Engineer, as contained in Memo No 206 dated 17.04.2009 and direct that ACP, as granted to the petitioner, would not be recalled and no amount recovered. Further, within one month from today, the petitioner’s claim for second ACP would be finalised by a speaking order and any amount found due pursuant thereto shall be paid by the Corporation to the petitioner within one month thereafter. The writ application is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions but though I had awarded heavy cost in earlier cases, I refrain from doing so on the undertaking that the orders would be complied with in true letter and spirit forthwith. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)