Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ application, in brief, is that petitioners have joined the establishment of Civil Courts at Dhanbad as Assistants on 21.05.1993, 11.07.1994 and 13.07.1994 respectively and since then they are working on the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on completion of 12 years of service, the petitioners submitted representation before the respondents-authorities, which was though discussed in the Screening Committee and the Committee even recommended the case of the petitioners for grant of 1st ACP in their favour, but respondent no. 5 rejected the claim of the petitioners vide office order dated 12.03.2012 on the ground that they have neither passed the required departmental examination nor have completed the age of 50 years, which is impugned in this case.
(2.) Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing order as contained in office order dated 12.03.2012. However, during pendency of the writ application, an amendment application was allowed vide order dated 26.11.2014 in I.A. No. 5751 of 2014, to challenge office order dated 28.01.2014 whereby respondent no. 5 has given the benefit of 1st M.A.C.P to the petitioners from the date of passing of their departmental examination i.e. 12.01.2013.
(3.) Under such circumstances, the main grievance of the petitioners are the date of grant of M.A.C.P and they want it to be ante dated from the date of completion of 12 years of service from their initial appointment.;