THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.11733 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.374 of 2005, wherein the application filed by the respondent herein for grant of second financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme after completion of 24 years of regular service, was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as Computor on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 in the office of the 2nd petitioner and he joined duty on 28.01.1981. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Data Entry Operator (DEO) in the same pay scale vide order dated 31.01.1983. Pursuant to the order dated 29.03.1993 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.216 of 1992, the petitioners regularized the service of the respondent as Computor up to his appointment as DEO without any claim for seniority in the grade of DEO vide order dated 31.05.1993. While so, the Government has introduced ACP Scheme for Central Government Civilian Employees as per the recommendation of the V Central Pay Commission vide Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999, according to which, two financial upgradations were granted to Group B, C and D employees on completion of 12 and 24 years of regular service. Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner vide order dated 24.12.1999 granted the first financial upgradation to the respondent with effect from 09.08.1999 and paid the arrears. On completion of 24 years of service, the respondent submitted a representation dated 12.12.2004 to the 2nd petitioner seeking to grant second financial upgradation in terms of ACP Scheme. Since there was no response from the petitioners, he filed O.A.No.374 of 2005 before the Tribunal, which in turn directed the petitioners to grant second financial upgradation to the respondent with effect from 28.01.2005 by allowing the O.A., against which, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that since he fulfilled the eligibility criteria laid down in the Memorandum dated 08.09.1999 and the clarificatory instructions issued vide Memorandum dated 10.02.2000, he is eligible for second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from 28.01.2005 and therefore, he submitted the representation to the 2nd petitioner seeking the said relief. 4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the respondent had appointed to the post of DEO Grade-B with effect from 02.04.1983 as a direct recruit, he has not completed 24 years of regular service in the said cadre, and as such, he is not eligible for the second financial upgradation with effect from 28.01.2005 and that the petitioners have passed an order dated 31.05.1993 that the service of the respondent as Operator was treated as fresh appointment and earlier service in the post of Computor could not be treated as continuous service for claiming the second financial upgradation. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Clarification at Sl.No.7 of Memorandum dated 10.02.2000, which reads as under: “ACPS is applicable only to Central Government Civilian employees and, as such does not get automatically extended to autonomous/statutory bodies. A conscious decision in this regard shall have to be taken by the governing body/competent authority/organization concerned. In relation to others, specific cases shall be examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the order of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmities and therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to Clarification Nos.4 to 6 of Memorandum dated 10.02.2000, which reads as under: “The benefits under ACPS are limited to higher pay scale and do not confer designation, duties and responsibilities of the higher post. Hence, the basic criterion to allow the higher pay scale under ACPs should be whether a person is working in the same pay scale for the prescribed period of 12/24 years. Consequently, so long as a person is in the same pay scale during the period in question, it is immaterial whether he has been holding different posts in the same pay scale. As such, if a Government servant has been appointed to another post in the same pay scale either as a direct recruit or on absorption (transfer) basis or first on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), it should not make any difference for the purpose of ACPs so long as he is in the same pay scale. In other words, past promotion as well as past regular service in the same pay scale, even if it was on different posts for which appointment was made by different methods like direct recruitment, absorption (transfer)/deputation, or at different places should be taken into account for computing the prescribed period of service for the purpose of ACPS. Also, in case of absorption (transfer)/deputation in the aforesaid situations, promotions earned in the previous/present organizations, together with the past regular service shall also count for the purpose of ACPS. However, if the appointment is made to higher pay scale either as on direct recruitment or on absorption (transfer) basis or fist on deputation basis and later on absorbed (on transfer basis), such appointment shall be treated as direct recruitment and past service/promotion shall not count for benefits under ACPS”. Learned counsel further contended that as the petitioners have regularized the service of the respondent as Computor with effect from 28.01.1981 to 01.04.1983, their contention with regard to non treating of service in the post of Computor as continuous service in terms of order dated 31.05.1993 is untenable and that the above said clarificatory instructions are squarely applicable to the case of the respondent. 7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has committed legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. 8. We have perused the material on record. It is evident from the Clarification at Sl.No.5 of Memorandum dated 10.02.2000 that the past promotion as well as past regular service in the same pay scale, even if it was on different posts for which appointment was made by different methods like direct recruitment, absorption(transfer)/deputation, or at different places should be taken into account for computing the prescribed period of service for the purpose of ACPS. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal considered the matter in right perspective and held that the respondent is entitled for second financial upgradation with effect from 28.01.2005 as his service was regularized in the post of Computor with effect from 28.01.1981 to 01.04.1983. In view of the same, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court under certiorari jurisdiction. 9. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:19.02.2010. sj