IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8366 of 2010 ====================================================== Devendra Jha Son of Late Kari Jha, resident of village- Lawapur Narain, P.S.- Mahnar, District-Vaishali at Hazipur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner Cum Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Middle Irrigation Project, Jamui 4. The Accountant General of Bihar, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Munger .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 3 29-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court why the reasons in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009, that the petitioner was not entitled to increments as he failed to cross efficiency bar was wrong. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order to that extent. In so far as the claim for A.C.P is concerned, the Court finds no merit in the objection of the respondents that no other person in the Directorate had been granted A.C.P. There is no finding in the order that it was not permissible under the service regulations. That his service may not have been confirmed and regularized appears to be an irrelevant consideration when an employee has completed his entire service 2 tenure and superannuated, applying the standards of a reasonable and prudent person understanding the meaning of the words ‘confirmation’ and ‘regularization’. The submission on behalf of the State that the impugned order suggests grant of two promotions to the petitioner in his service career and that he may not be entitled for grant of A.C.P. in that light, is a matter which leaves the Court dissatisfied in the nature of the inconclusive discussion on that aspect in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 18.12.2009 is, therefore, set aside to the extent that it denies the benefit of A.C.P. Let the claim for A.C.P. be now considered also in context of the two promotions stated to have been granted to him and whether they were an impediment in grant of relief. It is not permissible for the respondents to look into other issues. Let such consideration be done and the legitimate dues, if any, be paid within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Bhardwaj/- (Navin Sinha, J)