ORDER : Application for permission to file SLP in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1471 of 2003 is allowed. Delay condoned in filing and refiling of Special Leave Petitions. Leave granted. 2. The State of Haryana and certain public sector undertakings of the State of Haryana are the appellants before us. In these appeals, they challenge the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A series of Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by various Government employees and in Civil Writ Petition No. 45 of 1999 titled as "Suraj Bhan and others v. State of Haryana and others" the question, raised in the present appeals, was considered. The judgment of the High Court in that case was delivered on 21st September, 2000. This decision was followed in a series of other writ petitions. Special Leave Petitions were filed by the State of Haryana and others against the decision in Suraj Bhan's case (supra) and other similar writ petitions. Some of the Leave Petitions were dismissed at the admission stage itself on the ground of delay, but in some petitions notices were issued. That is how, these matters have come up before us. The State of Haryana had been paying salary and other allowances to the Government employees on the pattern adopted by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. After the adoption of the said report, the Government employees and various associations and unions, representing the Government employees, submitted representations to the Government, inter alia, pleading that they were not having adequate avenues for promotion and that Class III and IV employees had stagnated for long period and, therefore, these anomalies should be rectified. Initially, in the year 1991, the State of Haryana framed a scheme to grant additional increments to the Government employees, based on their length of service, viz., one additional increment on completion of 10 years service and the next increment for those who completed 20 years service. Thereafter, in the year 1994, the State introduced another scheme known as the Higher Standard Scale Scheme for Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees on completion of 10 years or more and 20 years or more regular and satisfactory service. This scheme worked for about two years. Thereafter, in the year 1994, the State introduced another scheme known as the Higher Standard Scale Scheme for Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees on completion of 10 years or more and 20 years or more regular and satisfactory service. This scheme worked for about two years. While so, as scheme was introduced by the Central Government where the employees were assured career progression. This scheme came into existence with effect from 1.1.1996. The scheme was for grant of Assured Career Progression Pay-Scales (ACP). The scheme was later adopted as Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution with effect from 1.1.1996. 2. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows :- "Eligibility for grant of ACP Scales :- (1) Every Government servant who, after a regular satisfactory service for a minimum period of 10 years, if the minimum period is not otherwise prescribed to be different than 10 years either in these rules or by the Government for any class or categories of Government servant from time to time, has not got any financial upgradation in terms of grant of a pay scale higher than the functional pay scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995, on which he was recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant :- (a) either as a consequence of his functional promotion in the hierarchy, or (b) as a consequence of the revision of pay scale for the same post, or (c) As a consequence of any other event through which the functional pay scale of the post has been upgraded, with respect to the functional pay scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995, scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995, shall for the purposes of drawal of pay, be eligible for placement into the First ACP scale with reference to him. (2) Every Government servant who after a regular satisfactory service for a minimum period of 20 years, if the minimum period is not otherwise prescribed to be different than 20 years either in these rules or by the Government for any class or categories of Government servants from time to time, has not got more than one financial upgradation in terms of grant of a pay scale higher than the functional pay scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995 on which he was recruited as a direct recruited fresh entrant : (a) either as a consequence of his functional promotion in the hierarchy, or (b) as a consequence of any other event though which the functional pay scale of the post has been upgraded, with respect to the functional pay scale prescribed for the post as on 31.12.1995, shall for the purposes of drawal of pay, be eligible for placement into the second ACP scale with reference to him : Provided that grant of ACP scale shall also be considered financial upgradation for the purpose of this rule : Note : For the purposes of these rules, "regular satisfactory service" would mean continuous service counting towards seniority under Haryana Government including continuous service in Punjab Government before reorganisation, commencing from the date on which the Government servant joined his service after being recruited through the prescribed procedure or rules etc. for regular recruitment, in the cadre in which he is working at the time of being considered his eligibility for grant of ACP scales under these rules and further fulfiling all the requirements prescribed for determining the suitability of grant of ACP scales. Explanation. - The ACP scale upgradation will come into play only to financial promotion or upgradation of scale for the same post as specified above, the Government servant has not got the benefit of atleast one pay scale upgradation within the prescribed period of 10 years or any other prescribed period for the grant of 1st ACP scale or two such financial upgradations within period of 20 years or within the period otherwise specified for grant of second ACP scale. If within 10 years of service or within the prescribed period of service for the grant of 1st ACP, the employee has already got atleast one financial upgradation or within 20 years of service, as the case may be or otherwise prescribed period of service for the grant of second ACP scale, the Government Servant has already got atleast two financial upgradations benefit of these rules will not be extended to such employees save if otherwise provided in these rules. (3) * * * * (4) * * * *" From the scheme it is clear that the benefit of ACP scale was intended to be given to the Government employees to avoid stagnation and to confer them atleast two promotions/upgradations. Rule 5 quoted above specifically provides that these ACP scales may not be granted to Government employees who have already got atleast two financial upgradations within 20 years of service. This also mentions that the starting point for giving such ACP scales shall be the initial entry into the service. 3. In the cases before us, most of the respondents joined the service as Group "D" employees. They were later promoted to Group "C" posts and when the ACP scales were introduced on 1.1.1996, they had a total service of 20 years. They had also got two upgradations during that period. Since all these respondents had started their career as Group "D" employees, they were given the benefit of ACP scales which were applicable to Group "D" employees. This is evident from the judgment rendered in Suraj Bhan's case (supra). For Group "D" post, the first ACP scale was Rs. 3050-75-3950-EB-80-4350 and second ACP scale, on completion of 20 years, was 4000-100-4800-EB-100-6000, whereas the ACP scales for Group "C" post was 4000-100-4800-EB-100-6000 and second ACP scale was 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850. As noted above, the respondents herein were given the ACP scales which were applicable to Group "D" posts. For example, Suraj Bhan, referred to in the impugned judgment, joined service as Group "D" employee on 7.12.1972. He became a Group "C" employee on promotion to the post of Clerk on 1.2.1984. As he had completed 20 years of service on 1.1.1992, he was initially granted the benefit of the second ACP scale, that is, 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850. For example, Suraj Bhan, referred to in the impugned judgment, joined service as Group "D" employee on 7.12.1972. He became a Group "C" employee on promotion to the post of Clerk on 1.2.1984. As he had completed 20 years of service on 1.1.1992, he was initially granted the benefit of the second ACP scale, that is, 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850. As the audit raised an objection to the effect that Suraj Bhan had already got the benefit of two upgradations, viz., from the pay scale of 750-940 to 800-1150, he was not entitled to the ACP scales applicable to Group "C" posts and his pay was sought to be reduced. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana contended that those employees who were initially recruited in Group "D" post, are not entitled to get ACP scales, applicable to Group "C" posts even if they are promoted to the cadre of Group "C" because both the posts constitute a separate class of employees. According to the learned counsel, it is the initial entry into the service, which is the starting point for the purpose of ACP scales and thus, there is no parity between the persons initially recruited to Group "D" posts and those recruited directly to Group "C" posts. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that these employees were promoted as far back in 1984 and when the ACP scales were introduced, they were Group "C" employees. Several other employees, who were directly appointed to Group "C" posts, were given the benefit of ACP scales that were available to Group "C" posts and the employees who were appointed in Group "D" are also entitled to the ACP scales even though they joined in Group "D" post at the initial stage. It was also pointed out that several anomalies may take place in case the respondents are denied such benefit. It was also pointed out that several anomalies may take place in case the respondents are denied such benefit. It was further pointed out that in the case of respondent No. 2 Mangal Singh in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 21814/2004, who joined as a Group "D" employee was promoted to the cadre of Group "C" post on 19.5.1973, and there was several other employees who got entry into Group "C" post in the years 1973 and 1974 and they were all given the ACP scales applicable to Group "D" employees, namely, 3050-4590, whereas the other Group "C" employees, who were directly recruited as Clerks and who joined service later, were given ACP scales which are applicable to Group "D" employees, namely, 4000-6000 as first ACP scale and, in cases, where the employees had completed 20 years of service in Group "C" were given the second ACP scales of 5000-7850. It was pointed out that junior employees working in the same cadre received higher pay scales, whereas senior employees, though came to Group "C" post through a different source of recruitment, got lesser pay scale. 6. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that under the scheme itself Rule 9 provides that there shall not be "stepping up" of the pay to rectify this mistake and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in giving stepping up to those employees who were seniors but received lesser pay scale. For this argument reliance was placed on Rule 9. 7. Rule 9 reads thus :- "9. Non-admissibility of stepping up in certain cases. - If the service provides or circumstances warrant direct recruitment at the level of promotional post, in addition to the filling up of such posts through promotion, no benefit of pay upgradation to the Senior Government servant who happens to be a direct recruit to a post other than the post on which the junior Government servant is a direct recruitee, on the plea that the junior promotee is drawing more salary based on the benefit of ACP upgradation shall be admissible." (emphasis supplied) 8. Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Government servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay by them. Rule 9 quoted above only says that the senior Government servants, who are direct recruits, are not entitled to get any stepping up in case any anomaly arises regarding the receipt of lesser pay by them. However, the same is not applicable to the respondents herein who joined the service as Group "D" employees and later got promotion to Group "C" post by selection. If there is any anomaly to the effect that the senior Government servants are receiving lesser pay than their juniors, who entered the service from a different source of recruitment, certainly such senior Government servants are entitled to stepping up of their pay in order to bring them on par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. There is no clause in the scheme which prohibits such stepping up of salary which is a common practice applicable to all Government employees in case there is anomaly in the pay structure of the employees. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that the respondents are entitled to get the ACP scales that are applicable to Group "C" post, but the Rules, as such, do not provide for that. The Rules say, that if there are already two upgradations, then the concerned employees are not entitled to the benefit of ACP scales. Nevertheless, if ACP scales are higher, they are certainly entitled to the ACP scales at the starting point. The date of giving such ACP scales is the date of entry into the service and though these respondents are entitled to get ACP scales and get fixation of the ACP scales as applicable to Group "D" employees and in case there are anomalies to the effect that they receive lesser pay than their juniors working in the same cadre/post, such senior Government servants are entitled to step up of their salary to get it on par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall revise the pay scales of the respondents. In case of any anomaly, if the employees who, on fixation of ACP scales, are in receipt of lesser salary than their juniors in the same cadre/post, then their salary shall be stepped up accordingly. Revised orders shall be passed within a period of two months of the receipt of the copy of this order by the Government. 9. However, if upon revision of the pay-scales, any employee is liable to refund any amount, the Government shall not insist on refund of such amount. If any employee is entitled to get any amount by way of pay revision, the said amount shall be made available to him within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the Government. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed with no order as to costs. Review Petition (C) No. 507/2004 in SLP(C) 20651/2002 The Review Petition is dismissed. Appeals partly allowed.