URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.

(2.) The benefits under the Assured Career Progression (for brevity, ACP) Scheme were earlier denied to the husband of the petitioner on account of pendency of Vigilance Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 19 of 1996. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 31.05.2013 leading to the end in the criminal proceedings arising out of Vigilance PS Case No 19 of 1996. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant writ petition claiming benefits under the ACP scheme.

(3.) Counter affidavit has admitted the claim of the petitioner. Specific stand is that the Vigilance PS Case No 19 of 1996 has been disposed of after the death of petitioner's husband and the petitioner's husband late Suchit Prasad Singh has been included in the list of persons entitled to get benefit of ACP and the same is only to be processed as per the RCD letter dated 16.03.2015 bearing Memo No 2342 (S). The said stand was taken in the instant proceedings by filing a counter affidavit way back in July, 2015. Till today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefits have not been given.