K.M. Joseph, C.J. - (1.) Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The complaint in the writ petition filed by the respondent is that he has been denied the benefit of the third ACP. He also sought to quash the order dated 07.09.2016 rejecting his application seeking the said benefit.
(2.) A detailed counter affidavit was filed.
(3.) The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment held as follows: "Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel, present for the State. Petitioner has been granted two ACPs. However, he has not been granted the 3rd ACP even he had completed 26 years of qualifying service. The ground taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has not been regularized. Thus, the benefit of 3rd ACP was not granted. Since the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of 2nd ACP, there is no reason to deny the 3rd ACP on the same length of service . Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 07.09.2016 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant the 3rd ACP to the writ petitioner within ten weeks from today.";