A retired clerk appealed a refusal of Assured Career Progression (ACP) due to un-cleared accounts. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach authorities under the Division Bench guidelines in Ramadhar Thakur despite bypassing administrative remedies.
None granted; liberty to approach authorities for ACP.
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.19983 of 2019
======================================================
Vijay Kumar, Son of Sadan Ram, Resident of Village-Chamhera, P.O. -Oriawan, Via-Ekangarsarai, Distt.-Nalanda, at present Residing at MohallaRam Krishna Nagar, P.S. Ram Krishna Nagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shanti Pratap, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, Advocate A.C. to G.A. - 2 For the Accountant General : Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-11-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
the office of Special Land Acquisition Middle Irrigation Project, Jamui, with effect from 31.10.2015. The matter for grant of ACP, it
seems, was pending. The Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar, by an office order dated 08.02.2019, has refused to grant the petitioner, benefits of Assured Career
Patna High Court CWJC No.19983 of 2019 dt.14-11-2019 2/3
Progression on the ground that he had not cleared the accounts examination. The said decision is being assailed in the present writ application with reference to a Division Bench decision dated 19.03.2018 of this Court rendered in LPA No. 599 of 2015 (Ramadhar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.), paragraph 177 of which reads thus:
“17. Situated thus, and in view of the discussions, as above, there is no gainsaying that in view of Sub rule 5 of Rule 4 of ‘the ACP Rules’, the requirements for grant of regular promotion shall be applicable while considering cases for grant of ACP. Since, there is no provision prescribing passing of accounts examination for regular promotion, the appellant could not have been denied grant of ACP. We are of the clear view that the decisions in case of Rameshwar Roy (supra) and Daya Shankar Singh (supra) do not lay down the correct law and the same cannot be made applicable”.
the petitioner did not approach the authorities before approaching this Court by way of present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19983 of 2019 dt.14-11-2019 3/3
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
S.Ali/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 15/11/2019 |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a retired government employee can be denied Assured Career Progression (ACP) based on non-clearance of accounts examination in light of the Division Bench decision in Ramadhar Thakur Vs. State
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramadhar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.Explained¶24
LPA No. 599 of 2015 (Ramadhar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.)
Rameshwar RoyDistinguished¶25
Rameshwar Roy (supra)
Daya Shankar SinghDistinguished¶25
Daya Shankar Singh (supra)
Vijay Kumar
The State of Bihar
The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
Joint Secretary cum Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Government of Bihar, Patna
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Special Land Acquisition Office, Middle Irrigation Project, Jamui (Bihar)
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
