IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11735 OF 2007 NIRUPMA MUKHERJEE, W/O SRI BIRENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O BBHUAGANJ, POLICE STATION ALAMGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4.THE PRINCIPAL, GURU GOVIND SINGH HOSPITAL, PATNA 7. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 03.11.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. From perusal of the writ application it would appear that the petitioner has two fold grievance namely for being given time bound promotion as also the benefits of A.C.P. The fact that the petitioner was appointed on 09.06.1967 and became eligible for being considered for grant of first time bound promotion w.e.f 01.04.1981 as also the second time bound promotion w.e.f 09.06.1992 and yet she did not move any Court of law till the year 2007, would make her first claim, the time bound promotion a stale matter. In fact from the service history also it appears that the petitioner 2 was initially appointed as lady Health Visitor and thereafter was appointed afresh on the post of nurse on 06.09.1983. Thus if the petitioner was also already granted jump of scale on 18.12.1989 w.e.f 01.01.1986 on the post of Nurse, she would not have been entitled to get any benefit of time bound promotion, inasmuch as, her claim for time bound promotion could have been considered only after 10 years if she had not received any jump in higher pay scale. As the date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of nurse is 06.09.1983, the petitioner would not be entitled for any time bound promotion till it remain in force i.e. 31.12.1995. The issue for grant of ACP, however, will have different consideration and ramification, inasmuch as, the petitioner’s 12 years of service would be completed on 06.09.1985 and 24 years of service on 06.09.2007. The petitioner however had retired on 31.07.2003 and therefore, she may be entitled to get the benefits of ACP. Counsel for the State has not been able to explain any of these aspects in the 3 absence of the counter affidavit filed by him. That being so, this Court would direct the competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner as with regard to benefit of ACP strictly in accordance with Government resolution and policy and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for grant of ACP, the financial benefit thereof must also be extended to her as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If on account of grant of ACP, the petitioner’s last pay and emoluments shall also be enhanced she should also be paid revised retirement benefit beyond what has already been paid to her. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)