DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the part of the order as contained in Memo No. 4821 dated 16.08.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by the Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative & Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No.2), whereby certain claim towards the payment of death-cum-retiral dues standing in the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been rejected and also for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner's-husband with regard to payment of benefit under Assured Career Progression (ACP) with all consequential benefits and also for quashing the part of the order whereby certain period has been declared as extra ordinary leave.
(3.) The facts of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee-Saryu Prasad Choudhary who was appointed and joined on the post of Block Development Officer, Barhet, Sahebganj in the year 1978-79 on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and worked till 31.08.2005. At the time of death the deceased employee was working as Assistant Director in the office of the Tribal Welfare Commissioner, Ranchi. This petitioner had earlier moved before this Court praying for a direction to the respondents to pay the deathcum-retiral benefits on account of petitioner's deceasedhusband, who died in harness on 31.08.2005. This court after considering the entire facts and circumstance, directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, stating her entire claim before the concerned respondents and further directed the respondents to consider and take a decision on the petitioner's claim and pay the amount which are legally payable under different heads. Pursuant thereto; the petitioner filed a detailed representation, however, when the same was not disposed of and a contempt case was also filed being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 673 of 2009. However, in the meantime an order dated 16.08.2011 was passed admitting certain claims. The grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to two aspects; one is that since he worked for almost 27 years, as such nonpayment of ACP benefit to this petitioner is non-est in the eye of law as the basic principle of ACP scheme is up-gradation of financial benefit. The other grievance is with regard to treating some period as extra ordinary leave which has adversely affected the pension of this petitioner. ;