Deepak Roshan,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 06.8.2009 passed by the learned Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby she has disallowed the petitioners' claim with regard to payment of pay-scale.
(3.) At the outset, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing this application for Petitioner No.4 since he has been allocated Bihar Cadre. He further submits that the petitioners were serving as Statistical Supervisor. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 were given the benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (A.C.P.) by an order dated 25th August, 2005 with retrospective effect, i.e. first A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.8.1999 and second A.C.P. w.e.f. 09.2.2000, whereas Petitioner No. 5 was given the benefit of first A.C.P. with effect from 09.3. 2002. Thus, the petitioners were given benefits under A.C.P. scheme as per correct procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that all of a sudden in the year 2009 vide office order dated 20.2.2009, the pay fixation which was done earlier was corrected to the extent that their scales was reduced. Being aggrieved, the petitioners herein challenged the said order before this court in W.P.(S) No. 963 of 2009. The said writ application was allowed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2009 was quashed and the respondents were given liberty to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, rules and regulations. Thereafter, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1295 dated 06.08.2009 has been passed whereby the Secretary rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per Clause 3(X) read with Appendix 1 in Resolution dated 14.8.2002, the petitioners are only entitled for pay-scale at Rs.5,500 - 9,000/- and 6,500-10,500/- as the first and second A.C.P. Mr. Bhanu Kumar further contended that the ground for disallowing the claim of the petitioner i.e. Clause 3(X) has already been withdrawn by A.C.P. notification dated 05.02.2007 itself; as such the basis of rejection is non-est in the eye of law. He concluded his argument by submitting that petitioners were rightly granted the first and Second A.C.P. vide order dated 25.08.2005 and thereby fixation was rightly done. ;