Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 17.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jaipur in OA No. 257/2003 vide which Harish Bulchandani, the petitioner in the original lis, was held entitled to benefit of first ACP which one is entitled to on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service under the Scheme. The order challenged by the petitioner dated 14.2003 (Annexure A-1) and dated 27/28-6-2002 (Annexure A-4) vide which the benefit of the scheme already given to the petitioner was withdrawn, were set aside by the Tribunal. 2. The only defence that came to be projected in defending the case of the petitioner was that having refused to accept promotion to a higher rank, the petitioner could not successfully claim benefit of the scheme as the benefit was available only to those who were stagnating on one post, there being no chance of promotion. The Tribunal while granting the relief primarily relied upon the decision of a coordinate, bench at Mumbai in OA No. 129/2003 in the case of V.R. Patil vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 20.6.2003, facts of which case, it is conceded position, were similar. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that despite repeated enquiries made from the concerned authorities, he has not been able to come to know as to whether the Union of India has challenged the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 129/2003 in the case of VR Patil (Supra). Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, states on the basis of documents, that the Judgment rendered by Mumbai Bench has since been implemented. Be that as it may, we have heard arguments independent of the decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench in the matter referred to above. 4. We were inclined to examine the matter in all its details but we are informed that the petitioner had refused promotion on 10.1999 and the scheme entitling the petitioner the benefit granted to him came into being on 111.2000. This factual position is not in dispute. 4. We were inclined to examine the matter in all its details but we are informed that the petitioner had refused promotion on 10.1999 and the scheme entitling the petitioner the benefit granted to him came into being on 111.2000. This factual position is not in dispute. Once it is proved that the petitioner had refused promotion at the time when the scheme was not even in existence it cannot be said that having refused promotion to a higher post, the petitioner cannot ask for the benefits that do accrue to him under the scheme that came into being on 111.2000. Surely, the petitioner would not even know at the time when he refused promotion, that scheme entitling him some benefits would come into being in future. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the relief has been rightly given to the petitioner by the Central Administrative Tribunal. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.