A-26 % 06.9.2011 Present: Mr.R.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. +CONT.CAS(C) No.152/2011 * Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench dated 02.11.2010 have not been complied with in -true letter and sprit. The said directions read as under: 15. But, with reference to ACP benefit it has to be noted that the respondent has been granted the benefit of crossing the efficiency bar and thus the law laid down in Brij Nath Pandey's case (supra) would have to be considered and in all probability the petitioner must get the ACP benefit, but we leave it without expressing any conclusive opinion for the reason this would be the job of the Review Committee. 16. We are informed that in compliance of the decision dated 25.2.2009 disposing of WP(C) 802/2006 representation against the below benchmark ACR grading has been considered and rejected. 17. Thus, there is no requirement for us to direct that for purposes of ACP benefit the ritual of again receiving a representation against the below benchmark ACR grading and considering the same be completed." The compliance affidavit has been perused; it is not in dispute that after passing of the order dated 0 2 .11. 2 01 0 by the Division Bench a Review Committee has been constituted. The Review Committee vide its order dated 08.2.2011 had held that the ACP benefits are not available to the petitioner P.K.Sarin. The findings of the Review Committee is contained in paras 8 to 10 and read as under: "8.As regards efficiency bar by shri P.K.Sarin, his ACRs for the years 1985-86,1986-87,1987-89 and 1989-90 might have been Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified