IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10559 of 2005 MADHULATA SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 04.08.2008 Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the dues of the petitioner have been paid to him. However, he claims that the petitioner was not considered for grant of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) under the A.C.P. scheme for which he became entitled w.e.f. 30.09.2004. Since no such prayer was made in the writ application for grant of A.C.P. to the petitioner, an I.A. has been filed by the petitioner for suitably amending the writ application. However, since the prayer was not made in the writ application, the respondents are not in a position to reply to the same. In the circumstances, it would be fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to file specific representation before the respondent no. 3 making a claim for grant of A.C.P. w.e.f. 30.09.2004. The petitioner may also cite examples where A.C.P. has been granted to his juniors by the Department. If such a representation is filed - 2 - by the petitioner within one month from today, respondent no. 3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned orders on that representation of the petitioner within three months thereafter. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is granted A.C.P. with effect from due date, consequential monetary benefits as well as pensionary benefits shall also be revised suitably and the differential amounts shall be paid to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)