Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. V.K. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. .2. The 2nd respondent in each of the above writ petitions had filed original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, for a direction to petitioners herein to quash the order dated 212. 2006. The question relates to the grant of benefits under the second Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short, ACPS). Subsequently, however, under the order impugned in the original applications, the Department observed that since the concerned employees had been upgraded on account of cadre revision during the year 1991 and subsequently promoted as Technical Assistants, although on the same scale of pay, such employees were not entitled to the benefit of second ACPS. The Tribunal has referred to Clarification No.35 given by the Government of India, which was to the following effect:- .3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact, the Tribunal had not considered the fact of Clarification No.52, which is to the following effect:- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed particular reliance upon the clarification to the effect that since the feeder and promotional grades had been retained in the same scale of pay, it was inevitable that the benefit of financial upgradation under ACPS was to be allowed only in the same scale, as the financial upgradation has to be allowed as per the existing hierarchy and financial upgradation cannot be allowed in a scale than the next promotional scale. 5. In the present case, it is not disputed that on account of cadre revision, the concerned employees were given the benefit of pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300. A few years thereafter, such employees were promoted as Technical Assistants from the post of Lab Technicians. However, the scale of pay applicable to the Technical Assistants was the same scale, viz., 1400-2300. If the contention of the present petitioners would be accepted, it would only mean that the initial upgradation and the subsequent promotion, even though in the same scale of pay, would be construed as if there had been two promotions and normal entitlement of getting second ACPS, on completion of 24 years of service, would be deprived. In our considered opinion, this would give rise to an anomalous post and would ultimately mean whatever was given in one hand was taken away through the other hand. In our considered opinion, this would give rise to an anomalous post and would ultimately mean whatever was given in one hand was taken away through the other hand. The interpretation which has been adopted by the Tribunal more particularly on the basis of specific clarification as per the Clarification No.35 appears to be more proper. In such view of the matter, we do not think this is a fit case where the order of the Tribunal is required to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.