BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order, contained in Annexure 6, whereby and whereunder he has been given the benefit of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) under the Scheme. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said benefit has been given to the petitioner treating him as appointee of 1979 whereas he was appointed in 1977.

(2.) IT appears that initially the petitioner was appointed as Copyist in the Copying Department of the Civil Court, Muzaffarpur, vide Order No. 62 of 1977, contained in Annexure 1. Later, he was given another appointment in Class III vide Appointment Order No. 92 of 1979, contained in Annexure A/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and the District and Sessions Judge -cum -Chairman Screening Committee, Muzaffarpur (respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively). From the writ petition it appears that the petitioner was given the benefit of initial appointment also in the matter of grant of time bound promotion, vide Annexure 3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has failed to show that by subsequent order of appointment (Annexure A/1) the petitioner's initial appointment was regularized. Initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Copyist in the Copying Department whereas vide Annexure A/1 he alongwith others has been appointed as temporary Clerk in the Civil Court, Muzaffarpur. As per proviso to Rule 4(1), the benefit of past service under such circumstances is to be denied only when a person is subsequently appointed on a higher scale. Insofar as Rule (4)(ii) of Rule 4 is concerned, it only deals with the cases where a person is regularised in service from his initial temporary appointment or appointment in the work charged establishment to whom the period is to be counted only from the date of regularisation.