2025:JHHC:22432 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3224 of 2025 1. Arun Kumar Mishra, son of late Ramvilash Mishra, resident of village Ahir Toli, Karma Toli, P.O and P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi. 2. Ram Narayan Sharma, son of late Rajeshwar Prasad Sharma, resident of village Mission Colony, Kohratoli, Kokar, Near Don Bosco ITI, Ranchi, P.O Kodar, P.S. Lalpur, Ranchi. ...Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Palamu, P.O Palamu, P.S. Sadar, District- Palamu, Jharkhand. ...Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I. ------ 04/07.08.2025: Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of benefit of ACP and current pension as well as 10% of the provisional pension of the petitioners be released forthwith. It has also been prayed for direction upon the respondents that while calculating his pension, past services of the petitioners rendered as employees of BSRTC be also taken into consideration and necessary increments be added thereon. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were erst while employees of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and after the creation of the State of Jharkhand, the services of the petitioners were absorbed by the State of Jharkhand with effect from 1.7.2004. He further submits that ACP/MACP has not been granted to the petitioners. He also submits that the issue of payment of ACP/MACP to the employees of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, who were absorbed by the State of Jharkhand has already been set at rest in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 247 of 2020 and its analogous cases (arising out of WPS No. 461 of 21018), therefore the petitioners are entitled to get the said benefits. He further adds that 10% of the pension of the petitioners has been withheld for the reason best known to the respondents. He lastly submits that the petitioners have already filed representation and suffice it would be if a direction is given to dispose of the said representation. 4. Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioners file fresh representation, their case will be considered and appropriate order will be passed. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties and the prayer made in this writ petition, I am of the opinion that at the first instance, it is the respondents who has to decided the claim of the petitioners. Thus, I direct the petitioners to file fresh representation before respondent No. 1 within four weeks from today. If such representation is filed, their representation should be disposed of by passing reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks, thereafter and copy of the reasoned order should be handed over to the petitioners. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J. )