1 WP-8914-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8914 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Dipali Dilip Kirwant ...Respondent Mr.V.P.Malvankar, `A’ Panel counsel for petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Dere for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. November 11, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned AGP and the State Government is aggrieved by the order dated 7/1/2011 passed by the Maharashtra 2 WP-8914-2011 Administrative Tribunal thereby allowing O.A. No.332 of 2010 and directed the petitioners to extend the benefits of Assured Career progress Scheme (ACP Scheme) from the year 1996 onwards but the Tribunal noted that the respondent – original applicant was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the year 1983 and was made permanent in 1984. The period of 12 years is required to be counted from 1984 when the original applicant was made permanent. The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M. Mathivanan [(2006) 6 SCC 57] and held that for counting the period of 12 years of service for granting the benefit of ACP Scheme, an employee having completed regular as well as non regular service would be entitled and it is not necessary that the 12 years service must be counted from the date when the order of permanency / regularisation was issued on 1/12/1994 as contended by the present petitioners. 2. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Mathivanan (Supra) and even otherwise it has been brought to our notice that by the order dated 3/1/1996 issued by the Director of Health Services, Government of Maharashtra the appointment of the original applicant was regularised from 28/6/1983 and hence in any way the order 3 WP-8914-2011 passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 3. The petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)