DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J. - (1.) Heard learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) State authorities have preferred the aforecaptioned review petition, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.2.2015 passed in writ petition No. 286 (SS) of 2015 : Baij Nath Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others., whereby the writ Court, on placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2011 : Bhuneshwar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 18.9.2014, allowed the writ petition in terms of judgment and order dated 18.9.2014 passed in Bhuneshwar Rai (supra) and quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition i.e. orders dated 3.11.2014 and 3.9.2014.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submits that the Assured Career Progression (hereinafter referred to as the "ACP") has been enforced by the State Government vide Government Order dated 4.5.2010, whereby, on completion of 10 years, 18 years and 26 years satisfactory services, the benefit of 1st ACP, 2nd ACP and 3rd ACP are admissible. Subsequently, vide Government Order dated 22.12.2011, the benefit of 2nd ACP has been made admissible on completion of 16 years services in place of 18 years services. His submission is that after regularization, when the ACP was enforced in the year 2010, the writ petitioners/respondents were claiming the benefit of ACP by counting their services, which they rendered in the Work -Charge Establishment but as the benefit of ACP is admissible on the basis of satisfactory substantive services and since the writ petitioners/respondents were the employees working in the Work -Charge Establishment, therefore, the benefit of ACP cannot be extended to them. Perhaps these facts could not be brought to notice of this Court while passing the order under review.;