The Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking an Additional Commission of Pension (A.C.P.). The court held that the grant of A.C.P. under the 2003 Scheme was mandatoryly conditioned upon passing the Accounts Examination, which the petitioner failed to do.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14657 of 2013
=========================================================== Yogendra Sharma S/O Late Suraj Deo Sharma Resident Of Mohalla- Jagdeo Nagar, Krishna Sadan, P.S- Arrah Nawada, District- Bhojpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Md. Ataul Haque For the Respondent/s : Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 18-11-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case, a prayer has been made for grant of A.C.P. which has been rejected on the ground of not having passed the Accounts Examination which is mandatorily required for granting such relief under the scheme of 2003 A.C.P. Rule.
As per claim of the petitioner, he was appointed on the post of Correspondence Clerk on 27.1.1973 and superannuated from the office of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department at Saharsha to the full satisfaction of the higher authorities. The petitioner has discharged his duty for 36 years but, has not been granted even single A.C.P. though he has completed ten years of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14657 of 2013 dt.18-11-2016
2
service on 26.1.1983 and he was entitled to 1st A.C.P. and 2nd A.C.P.
The petitioner has claimed his relief on the basis of a Circular dated 12.8.1992 which contemplates that the persons who have been promoted earlier will not be demoted only because they have not passed the examination but, after 1983, it was mandatorily required that the persons will have to pass the departmental examination. Rule 157 of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rule also postulates for the purpose of promotion, an employee will have to pass the departmental examination.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not passed the Accounts Examination and the condition which has been mentioned under Rule 4(5) stipulates that the conditions which are attached for the regular promotion will equally be applicable in the case of granting A.C.P.
In that view of the matter, as the petitioner has not passed the Accounts Examination, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
Rishi/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | NA |
| UploadingDate | 22.11.2016 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who has not passed the mandatory Accounts Examination is entitled to an Additional Commission of Pension (A.C.P.).
Whether the requirement to pass a departmental examination is applicable to the grant of A.C.P.
Yogendra Sharma
The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary, Minor Irrigation
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
