JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - Petitioners assail the judgment dated 13.5.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 225 of 2003 wherein the claim of the Petitioners for stepping up of their pay to be at par with their juniors was rejected. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the office of the Deputy Director of Accounts (Posts), Department of Post, Mahanadi Vihar (opposite party No. 3) on different dates in between December 1969 and May 1970 and Petitioner No. 1 promoted to Upper Division Clerk which was redesign Ted as Auditor and thereafter as Junior Accountant on 2.11.1972, Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 on 21.9.1973 and Petitioner Nos. 7 to 9 on 8.8.1972 against 50% of promotional quota. The 50% quota to be filled up by direct recruitment. One Sri B.P.K. Rao joined as Junior Accountant on 2.9.1975 and as such he is junior to all the Petitioners. 3. On 11.8.1987 restructuring order of the Account employees was published upgrading 80% of Junior Accountant to Senior Accountant in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/-, which was revised to Rs. 5000- 8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. On the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, the Union of India introduced the A.C.P. Scheme assuring Government servants to two financial up gradation, if they are not promoted within 12/24 years of service to mitigate the hardship due to acute stagnation in the cadre. The said scheme became applicable to the Department of Post on 8.2.2000. As a consequence of such financial up gradation, juniors like B.P.K. Rao was placed in a higher scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10,500/- under the A.C.P Scheme after completion of 24 years or service w.e.f. 16.1.2002. However, the Petitioners continued in the scale of Rs. 5000- 8000/- which was revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-. 4. The Petitioners made a representation, but the department concluded that since Sri Rao joined as a Junior Accountant(directly recruited) and has received one promotion to the post of Senior Accountant due to up gradation of 80% of the Junior Accountant post to Senior Accountant post and has received the higher scale of pay, whereas the Petitioners were promoted from L.D.C. to Junior Accountant and due to up gradation scheme they have received second promotion to the post of Sr. Accountant and are not eligible to receive higher scale of pay under the A.C.P Scheme. Accountant and are not eligible to receive higher scale of pay under the A.C.P Scheme. Such decision of the Department was assailed by the Petitioners in O.A. No. 225/2003 before the learned Administrative Tribunal. Learned Tribunal held that 80% up gradation of the post of Junior Accountant as Sr. Accountant is promotion and A.C.P scheme will not be applicable to Sr. Accountant, who came to the post of Junior Accountant by promotion and thus the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the Petitioners. 5. In course of hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal has not answered the issue of stepping up of pay of the Petitioners and has come to an erroneous conclusion. It is contended very emphatically that the Petitioners are Senior to Sri B.P.K. Rao and Sri Rao is receiving higher pay than them. It is contended that the service law provides that Junior should not receive higher pay than the senior. 6. Learned Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the writ petition is without merit and the same should be dismissed. 7. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3250/2006 (Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Sarup Ganda and Ors.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of Rule 9 of the relevant A.C.P. rules does not envisage stepping up of pay to rectify the anomaly. Rule 9 of the A.C.P pay scale applicable to the Petitioners and the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court provides for non-admissibility of stepping up in certain cases. It is provided in the said provision that if the service rules 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 up gradation 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 A.C.P. up gradation shall be admissible. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this provision is not applicable to those employees who joined in the service as Group "D" employee 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 at par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that 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. Thus, the Supreme Court held in the aforesaid case that senior Government servants are entitled to step up of their salary to get it at par with the salary which is being received by their juniors. 8. It is not disputed in this case that the Petitioners are seniors to Sri B.P.K. Rao. The facts of this case are also similar to the case of Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Sarup Ganda and Ors. (supra). However, the A.C.P. scheme as applicable to the employees of opposite party No. 2 are guided by a different set up regulations. Annexure-2 is the said regulation. Having gone through the regulation, it is found that no provision like that of Rule 9 of the relevant rules as referred to in the above-cited case. Rather Clause-8 expressly prohibits such stepping up of salary. It is apt to quote the same: 8. The financial up gradation under the A.C.P scheme shall be purely personal to the employee and shall have no relevance to his seniority, position. As such, there shall be no additional financial up gradation for the senior employee on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay scale under the A.C.P scheme. 9. Petitioners have not contended that such provision is ultra vires of the constitution. Rather they accept the A.C.P scheme as it is. In view of such clear provision, the Petitioners are not entitled under the present scheme for any step up of as Clause-8 specifically and expressly prohibits such stepping up of pay. 9. Petitioners have not contended that such provision is ultra vires of the constitution. Rather they accept the A.C.P scheme as it is. In view of such clear provision, the Petitioners are not entitled under the present scheme for any step up of as Clause-8 specifically and expressly prohibits such stepping up of pay. The rational behind the said scheme can be seen in the fact that the present Petitioners have been appointed as Upper Division Clerk and later on they were given one promotion to Junior Accountant. Thereafter because of up gradation they became Senior Accountant. Thus, they have enjoyed two promotions during their service career. The very purpose of providing for A.C.P. in the pay revision is to avoid the hardship due to acute stagnation.. Once the Petitioners have availed two such promotions, they are not eligible for A.C.P. and in such case, the said A.C.P. should not be given to them in a different guise, i.e. stepping up the pay to equate with the employees who have got A.C.P. Doing so, would be giving double benefit to the Petitioners. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and therefore the same is dismissed. No costs. Pradip Mohanty, J.-I agree. Final Result : Dismissed