IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12934 of 2009 MANAS KUMAR VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 09.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to grant of first ACP from 9.8.1999. However, this was granted to him only on 24.4.2001 and that too only after he filed an application under the Right to Information Act seeking reasons for denial of the same. It is however fairly acknowledged that this date of grant of first ACP has been accepted by the petitioner and he has not challenged the same. Thereafter the respondents granted him the benefit of the second ACP by order dated 27.5.2009 but it has been subsequently withdrawn on 1.8.2009 with further directions to recover as arrears the payment made in pursuance of the same. Not only has this been done in violation of the principles of natural justice but it is additionally in violation of Rule 3 (iii) of the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the rules’). On the date that the rules came into force the petitioner had completed 12 years of service and was therefore entitled to his first ACP and in terms of such release second ACP was necessary concomitant after 24 years of service computed from the date of appointment in 1980.The order of withdrawal was therefore not sustainable. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon Rule 4(5)(ii) of the rules to urge that the petitioner was visited with a major punishment and therefore he has been granted first ACP not from 9.8.1999 but from 24.4.2001 which has been accepted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the factum of the petitioner having been visited with a major punishment and grant of first ACP from 24.4.2001. If the petitioner has accepted the grant of his first ACP from that date attributed to the orders of his appointment and has chosen not to challenge the same, he cannot derive the benefits thereunder and yet challenge the same benefit by contending that notwithstanding the same he is still entitled to his second ACP. To this Court the petitioner is clearly entitled to the grant of second ACP after 12 years from 24.4.2001 in terms of Rule 4(5) (ii) of the Rules. Undoubtedly it is the case of the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit filed today that before issuance of the impugned order dated 1.8.2009 he was not heard. When the facts of the case are eloquent what natural justice means shall depend on the facts of each case. Considering the admitted facts and the period of three months only when the benefit has been recalled this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the order only on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced in absence of the same That leaves the issue of payment made to the petitioner under the second ACP. If the petitioner has received any financial benefits of the second ACP this Court expects that the respondents shall not recover the same from the petitioner and shall adjust the same from the benefits that may be available to the petitioner on the scheduled date after he becomes entitled to the second ACP and if his service tenure be short it shall be recovered in easy installments. This writ application is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)