IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 819 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 16, 2010 State of Haryana and others …Appellants Versus Kuldeep Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 23.2.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2009 of 2009. The learned Single Judge has granted the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP scale by taking into consideration the service rendered by the petitioner-respondent in the Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. On 6.1.1970, he was appointed as Octroi Peon and thereafter promoted as Octroi Incharge Barrier on 19.4.1973. In the year 1999, the octroi was abolished by the appel- lant State and the petitioner-respondent was adjusted in the Industrial Training Institute, Ambala City, Ambala, from where he sought voluntary retirement. LPA No. 819 of 2010 Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has rightly relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana and another v. Deepak Sood and others (Civil Appeal No. 4446 of 2008, decided on 15.7.2008). Their Lordships’ have reiterated the view taken in series of judgments that in case of a transfer/absorption from one de- partment to another or from public sector to State though the benefit of the seniority may be denied to the incumbent but not for other benefits like pay fixation and for the pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the benefit of past service rendered in the parent department was given for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits, there is no reason why the past service should not be counted for grant of ACP Grade. There is no reason to deny the same benefit to the petitioner-respondent. The matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deepak Sood (supra) in favour of the petitioner-respondent and does not merit interference of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) July 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2