IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6941 of 2010 BINDESHWARI PRASAD SHARMA son of Late Hari Narayan Pandey, resident of Mohalla Postal Colony No. 2 Dahiyawan Chapra, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Dist-Saran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary Cum-Commissioner, Water Resources Department. Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Water Resources, Department, Patna. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandak Project, Chapra. ----------- 2 13.1.2011 Petitioner was appointed in Government services on 4.4.1966 on temporary basis, he continued in service and, after completing the normal age of superannuation, he has superannuated on 31.1.2001. Thus he worked with the respondents for almost 35 years. During his service period he was granted first time bound promotion, second time bound promotion, selection grade scale etc. After superannuation he has been granted the pensionary benefits also. After the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 2003 was made effective from 09.08.1999, petitioner became entitled for the same also. Therefore, he filed his representation before the respondents which has been rejected by the letter contained as 2 Annexure-4 on the ground that in the service book of the petitioner there was no mention of confirmation of his service. Respondents have also filed their counter affidavit with the same stand for denying the claim of the petitioner for the benefits of A.C.P Scheme. Petitioner worked with the respondents for almost 35 years without any blemish is not disputed. He was allowed to superannuate after completing the age of superannuation and was allowed pensionary benefits after superannuation is also not disputed. He was also granted time bound promotions and selection grade scale during his service period is also not denied. This clearly shows that the petitioner, for all practical purposes, was treated as confirmed employee of respondents. Clearly it was latches on the part of the respondents, that they did not pass any formal orders of his confirmation, or otherwise, during his entire service career. Now, after superannuation and after granting so many benefits to him 3 during and for his entire length of service, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise the technical objection that the services book of the petitioner does show any entry that his services were confirmed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner is belated, as after superannuation in 2001 he has filed his application only in March, 2009, for the first time. The Rules implementing A.C.P Scheme came in force w.e.f. 25.6.2003. Thereafter only, the claim of the petitioner for the benefits thereof accrued. This reduces the delay to five years. If the respondents have delayed and defaulted in passing formal orders of confirmation, or otherwise, of the petitioner for the entire length of his 35 years of service, this five years delay cannot be allow to come in his way in the matter. Writ application is accordingly allowed. Annexure-4 is quashed and respondents are directed to treat the service of the petitioner confirmed and 4 allow him the benefits of A.C.P Scheme in accordance with law with consequential payments within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Prakash (J.N. Singh, J.)