IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3358 of 2010 1. Raj Mukul S/O Late Maheshwar Prasad R/O Vill.- Jiajore, P.S.- Ander, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar 2. Shyam Narayan Kunwar S/O Late Ram Chandra Kumar R/O 29, Kautilya Nagar, B.M.P. Nagar, Patna 3. Ram Sharnagat Singh S/O Late Vibhishan Singh A/14 Jagat Amravati Apartment, Bailey Road, P.S.- Kotwali, Patna 4. Raghu Bansh Kumar S/O Krishna Murari Sharma Sherpur House, Kadam Kuan, P.S.- Kadam Kuan, Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Human Resource Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The Director Administration Cum Joint Secretary Deptt. Of Human Resource Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6/ 06/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Court’s order dated 26.11.2010 in the present proceedings is self explanatory with regard to the law and facts for consideration in the case. It is not considered necessary to reiterate the same. The petitioners, relying on Annexure-5 dated 10.11.2001 issued by the Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department of the State Government submit that it identifies the next promotional post from that of Deputy Director, Education, as the Additional Director, Education. The pay-scale of the former is Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,200/- while the pay-scale of the latter is 2 Rs.14,300/- to Rs.18,300. They are therefore entitled to their A.C.P. in the basic grade of the latter and not in the scale of 12,000 to 16,500/- as given to them. The counter affidavit at Pargraph-7 dealing with the pleadings in Paragraph-10 of the writ application supported by annexure-5, states that these are matters of record and require no comments. Affirmed by an officer of the rank of Deputy Director, Administration in the Department of Human Resources it then concludes at paragraph-11 that the claims of the petitioners can be considered only after the service cadre rules which is under process are finalized. The stand of the respondents does not appear to be reflected very clearly. If the next promotional post for Deputy Director is Additional Director, there can be no difficulty for the grant of A.C.P. in the basic of the grade. The absence of service cadre rules may not be very relevant as A.C.P. is an anti stagnation measure and does not amount to substantive promotion. The Principal Secretary, Finance, has passed a fresh order on 10.3.2011 setting out the reasons for denial of A.C.P. to the petitioner in the Scale of R. 14,300 to 18,300/- as directed by the Court on 26.11.2010. The crux of the order is that the number of the promotional posts still remained to be identified. 3 Even if cadre rules are framed it shall make no difference to the claims of the petitioner and they would still be entitled to A.C.P. in the scale of 12,000 to 16,500/- . The order does not deal with Annexure-5 dated 10.11.2001. To this Court the stand taken in this order appears contradictory to that taken by the Deputy Director, Administration, in his counter affidavit. Additionally, the Court finds that the stand of the Principal Secretary is speculative in nature. He cannot presume what the position or may or may not be after the Cadre Rules are framed. There can be no presumptive administrative orders while dealing with the citizen. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly suggested that the Department of Education has necessarily to be associated with the issue for grant of A.C.P. as claimed. The order of the Principal Secretary dated 10.3.2011 is therefore held to be not sustainable and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance. He is required to call for necessary information and assistance from the Department of Education. If the order dated 10.11.2001, that Additional Director was the next promotional post for Deputy Director holds the field, the non-framing of cadre Rules may be of no 4 relevance for purposes of A.C.P. In any event the parent department has to frame the cadre Rules and if it is an impediment it has to be removed immediately. In that event the parent department shall do so within a maximum period of two months. Let such appropriate exercise be carried out by the Department of Education and the Department of Finance in conjunction and a final decision be taken within a maximum period of six to ten months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is expected that if the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, necessary consequential orders shall be issued simultaneously without having to await the institution of a fresh writ application by the petitioner for that purpose. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)