JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for grant of the benefits of ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 to the deceased father of the petitioner and for payment of all the consequential benefits thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased father of the petitioner joined service on 01.04.1970 and died in harness on 16.10.2005 while working on the post of Correspondence Clerk at Rural Development Department, Division-I, Samastipur. It is submitted that earlier also a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 12832 of 2013 was filed before this Court by the mother of the petitioner, however, during the course of arguments, it transpired that the services of the deceased father of the petitioner has not been confirmed, hence, the said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 14.12.2016. Subsequently, upon enquiry it transpired that the services of the deceased father of the petitioner had stood confirmed, however, he has been denied the benefits of ACP on the ground of non-passing of the departmental accounts examination.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the counter-affidavit, has submitted that since the deceased father of the petitioner has failed to pass the departmental examination, he has not been granted the benefits of ACP.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on records. The issue in question is no longer res integra inasmuch as the said issue has already stood decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471, paragraphs No. 5 to 9 are reproduced herein-below:

"5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the issue involved in the appeal is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by the Division Benchs of this Court in the following decisions:

(i) Bishwanath Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 136

(ii) Avinash Chandra Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 663

(iii) Uday Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 PLJR 824

(iv) Ramadhar Thakur vs. State of Bihar, LPA No. 599/2015, dated 19.3.2018

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the facts are not in dispute between the parties. The only issue involved in the appeal is as to whether passing of departmental accounts examination would be necessary for grant of benefits of Assured Career Progression, provided under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 read with Clause (J) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958. I am in agreement with the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the issue, in hand, is no more res integra as the same has already been decided by different Division Benches of this Court in a catena of similar cases, mentioned herein-below:

(i) State of Bihar vs. Anjani Kumar, (2013) 2 PLJR 643

(ii) Uday Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 PLJR 824

(iii) Ramadhar Thakur vs. State of Bihar, LPA No. 599 of 2015

7. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ramadhar Thakur (supra), after extensive analysis and discussion of the provision of rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules 1958 and Rule 4 (clause 5) of the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, conclusively held after referring to various judgments, viz. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 PLJR 282; Syed Mozammil Ashraf vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 1 PLJR 438; Shashi Shekhar Ambasta vs. State of Bihar, (2011) 3 PLJR 474; Maheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 PLJR 262; Rameshwar Roy vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 2 PLJR 127; Daya Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 3 PLJR 220 and Md. Shamsuddin vs. State of Bihar, (1983) PLJR 347 that Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar