IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.10554 OF 2007. SACHCHIDANAND SINHA , S./O LATE ANANDI PRASAD, EX-ASSISTANT , PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, LADANIA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT RESIDING IN MOHALLA SAIDNAGAR, P.O. +P.S LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMICCIONSER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DIRECTOR IN CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 7.THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ------------------- 2/ 21-10-2011 Heard counsel for the parties. While the petitioner was continuing in service on the post of clerk under the administrative control of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani, the Government had resolved to consider the case of working employees for grant of ACP which came by way of a substitute to time bound promotion. The petitioner could not get benefit of such decision of the Government taken in the year 1999, whereas the date of his retirement was 31.07.2002. The petitioner, however, had kept 2 on pressing his grievance in order to get not only certain arrears of salary but also enhanced retirement benefit on the basis of revised pay on account of grant of ACP. Nothing, however, was done to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner. At long last the respondents realized in the year 2008, when they received information about the filing of this writ application by the petitioner claiming his grant of ACP and only then the heads were being searched on whose the responsibility could be shifted. One Sunil Kumar Choudhary, basic health worker could be spotted out, who was said to be responsible for maintaining the service book of the other employees. A show cause notice was issued on 27.03.2008 as contained in Annexure-A and on the same day, the petitioner was also given a separate letter by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani to deposit the documents relating to his grant of pension, gratuity, P.P.O etc., within 24 hours. The petitioner claims that he had also given those documents which were with him within 24 hours. In the counter 3 affidavit which has been filed by the respondents, was actually sworn on 11.08.2009, wherein, it has been stated that a search was going on for finding out the service book of the petitioner and the ‘moment’ it would be found, the petitioner will be given his ACP. Unfortunately that ‘moment’ has not arrived as yet even after expiry of a period of two years, inasmuch as, the counsel for the petitioner has asserted that till today, he has been given no communication by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani with regard to grant of ACP or even rejection thereof. Counsel for the State in fact has once again reiterated the same stand taken by the respondents and has submitted that the case of the petitioner would be considered, the ‘moment’ the service book would be traced out by the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note that it is only class-III and class-IV employees who have to suffer the slackness, negligence and callousness of the Authorities. This Court would hardly find 4 out such a situation for the Gazetted Officers, inasmuch as, they do get all their benefits in time but when they are supposed to pass it on to their subordinate as per the Government decision to the class-III and class-IV employees, they invariably adopt a ruthless, if not a wholly arbitrary approach. Here in this case the petitioner has retired in July 2002 and even after after a period of 9 years his ACP has not been granted. The respondents did not deny this fact that the petitioner was eligible for grant of ACP and the only reason for not granting ACP to the petitioner is the missing service book. The question would be, who was the custodian of the service book and if the service book went missing why was it not reconstructed. Counsel for the State definitely will have no answer to it because all that he was instructed was that the case of the petitioner for grant of ACP will be considered, the ‘moment’ the service book is traced out. In such a situation, this Court would direct the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Madhubani to ensure that 5 the service book of the petitioner is reconstructed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and his case for grant of ACP is also decided in next one month. Any financial benefit by way of arrears of salary on account of grant of ACP to the petitioner also must be passed on to him by making its actual payment within next one month. The office of Accountant General will also do the needful in revising the pension and other retirement benefits which may get enhanced on account of grant of ACP of the revised pay of the petitioner. It is made clear that if this exercise is not completed by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani in the aforementioned period, his payment of salary shall remain withheld till he would pass an appropriate order in terms of the direction given above. It is also made clear that it will be no explanation for the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani in office at present to take a plea, that he was not the Civil Surgeon at the point of time when the petitioner had retired from 6 service in the year 2002 or when the search for service-book has started in the year 2008 vide Annexure-A and B to the counter affidavit. The Civil Surgeon, Madhubani having completed his exercise would submit a compliance report to the Registry of this Court. As the petitioner was coerced to file this case only on account of laches on the part of the Office of the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani, this Court would direct for payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the Civil Surgeon, Madhubani to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order through account payee cheque and the details of payment of this amount to be also furnished in the report to be submitted by him to the Registry of this Court. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. RANJAN (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)