- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner in this application has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him his entire retiral benefits and also the benefits of ACP by fixing his pension in the revised scale together with payment of statutory interest.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner explains that in the year 1972 the petitioner was appointed in the Police Service of the State Govt as a Sub Inspector of Police and after completing 10 years' service, he was granted promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. Subsequently, by order dated 16th May,.2001, he was promoted to the post of Dy. S P. and prior to his retirement on 31.1.2007, he was posted as Dy.S.P. in the C.I.D under the state of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Learned counsel explains that the concerned authority of the respondents had approved and sanctioned the benefit of ACP to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.8.1999 but the monetary benefit of ACP was not given to him even after retirement. Consequently, pension of the petitioner was fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn by him without addition of the benefits which could have accrued to him under the ACP. Further more, though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Dy.S.P, but the benefit of revised pay scale applicable to the aforesaid post was not given to him. The petitioner filed representations on 9.2.2007 and 9.8.2007 expressing his grievance and demanding payment of the monetary benefit due to him but since the representations were not considered at all and no response was forthcoming from the concerned authorities of the State Government, the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
(3.) HOWEVER , learned counsel for the respondent State by referring to annexure 2 which contains names of several police personnel to whom benefit of ACP was granted, submits that the petitioner was also granted benefit of the ACP from 9.8.1999, As regards the claim that despite sanction of benefit of ACP, the monetary benefit has not been given to the petitioner, learned counsel prays for some time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. It appears that except the aforesaid claim of monetary benefit, the petitioner has been paid all other retiral dues payable to him. It also appears from annexure -1 that the petitioner was given benefit of ACP with effect from 9.8.1999. It also appears that the petitioner submitted representation demanding payment of the monetary benefits consequent upon the grant of the ACP, but the concerned authorities of the respondents have not taken care to consider and dispose of the representation.;