IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.193 of 2010 1. DINESH PRASAD MANDAL S/O LATE B.L.MANDAL R/O S.F.A.- 1/24 (H.I.G), HOUSING COLONY, BAHADURPUR, P.S- AGAMKUAN, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. M.K. Thakur,Advocate For the State:- S.C.I 2 22.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.2 the Joint Director, Agriculture (INPUT), Bihar, Patna and reply to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has retired from the post of Block Agriculture Officer on 30.6.2008. His grievance is that the respondent authorities are not granting him the benefit of first and second ACP with all consequential monetary benefits, despite the fact that he is entitled for the same, although the Directorate of Agriculture had considered the case for granting benefit of ACP to the employees in its meeting dated 28th May 2005. Petitioner was appointed as Sugar Cane Inspector in the Department of Agriculture on 4.12.1980 and successfully completed 12 years and 24 years of his service. The 2 Scheme of Assured Career Progression was introduced by the State Government in the year 2003, which has been made applicable with effect from 9.8.1999. Under the Scheme on completion of 12 and 24 years of service, the Government employees were given benefit of Assured Career Progression by way of allowing the financial benefits in case they were not allowed the regular promotion. Petitioner completed his 12 years of service on 4.12.1992 and 24 years on 4.12.2004, as such he became entitled for first ACP with effect from 9.8.1999 and second ACP with effect from 4.12.2004. However, petitioner has retired in the year 2008 but till date he has not been allowed this benefit. The reason shown for not granting benefit to the petitioner as disclosed by respondent no.2 is that while posted as Block Agriculture Officer at Chandi, Nalanda, petitioner was trapped by the Vigilance and sent in Judicial custody on 20.2.2007. He was put under suspension from the date of sending in judicial custody and a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him which is still continuing. 3 It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the Departmental Screening Committee while considering the grant of ACP to the employees of Category-I, did not allow this benefit to the petitioner, for the reasons that departmental as well as criminal proceeding is pending against him. His matter had been kept pending subject to the disposal of criminal as well as departmental proceeding. In reply, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the pendency of criminal and departmental proceeding on account of institution of criminal case by the Vigilance in the year 2007 has no relevance so far granting the benefit of first and second ACP to the petitioner, for the reason that his entitlement for first ACP became due on 9.8.1999 and the second ACP on 4.12.2004. The meeting for allowing the benefit of ACP was held at the Directorate level on 28.5.2005, where it was decided that the Government employees working in the Department should be allowed the benefit of ACP. Since on all three relevant dates i.e. 9.8.1999, 4.12.2004 and 28.5.2005, neither any criminal or 4 departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, as such on account of subsequent event the petitioner cannot be discriminated and debarred from getting the benefit under this scheme. I find merit in the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, the State Government has decided to allow this benefit to such regular Government employees, who have not been given any regular promotion during their entire service career. For giving such benefit, which includes financial benefits, only relevant date is the date, when employee concerned became entitled for the same. In case on those dates no departmental and criminal proceeding is pending against the Government employee, his entitlement can not be questioned and he cannot be debarred from getting such benefits. Petitioner admittedly was entitled for receiving this benefit on all three relevant dates. Subsequently, in the year 2007 a departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding has been initiated, for that reason he cannot be debarred from getting this benefit. 5 Accordingly, this application is allowed. The Respondent no.2 is directed to grant first and second ACP with all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner, for which he is entitled as per the own decision taken by the respondent in the meeting held in the year 2005(Annexure-1). The Respondent no.2 Director Agriculture, Bihar, Patna is directed to pass necessary orders in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of production/communication of this order and make payment of all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks from the date of passing such order. The writ application stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar