IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2992 of 2011 PRABHA KANT VERMA S/O CHANDRA KUMAR PRASAD VERMA R/O VILL- ANANDI BABU LANE, ADAMPUR, PO + PS-ADAMPUR (KOTWALI) DISTT- BHAGALPUR AT PRESENT HEAD CLERK, BUILDING DIVISION, JEHANBAD--------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECY. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH BINAR WING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR,PAGNA 4. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, BUILDING CIRCLE,GAYA 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BUILDING CIRCLE,GAYA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING DIVISION,JEHANABAD --------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 6.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a head clerk who is working in the Building Division of Jehanabad. He has filed his claim for grant of benefit of second and third ACP. The application for such a claim was made by the petitioner on 11.3.2010 and has been forwarded to the Superintending Engineer Building Construction Department, Building Division, Gaya by the Executive Engineer, Jehanabad. This is evident from perusal of annexure-4 which is the letter no. 300 dated 11.3.2010 of the Executive Engineer. As usual the superior authority did not take any decision and the petitioner is before this Court. Since the claim of the petitioner would be required to be examined on the basis of his service records which is readily available at local level, these exercises can be done better by the authority who is saddled with the responsibility. Total silence leads to unnecessary litigation and burdens the citizens as is exemplified in the present writ application. - 2 - In view of above this writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Superintending Engineer i.e. respondent no. 5 who is competent authority to grant such benefit to the petitioner that he will take a decision within a period of three months from the date of the production/communication of a copy of this order or else the matter will have to go before the superior authority who may take a decision. If the claim of the petitioner is found to be in order in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the scheme of ACP, the benefits must accrue more so since the petitioner it seems has superannuated in April, 2011. If the decision is otherwise he would be informed of the reason with regard to that part of the claim which is not entertainable or payable. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)