Judgment :- U.V. Bakre, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the Impugned Communications dated 6/12/2004 and 20/12/2004 (ANNEXURE “H” collectively to this Petition); b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to award the Petitioner benefit of ACPS in terms of Memorandum dated 22/2/2001 with effect from 22/2/2001 or at least 1/6/2001 along with all consequential benefits like arrears, re-fixation of pension, etc.; c. In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the Petitioner re-fixation of the Petitioner's last pay drawn by carrying on the exercise of stepping up of pay under FR 22 or principles analogous thereto, from such date as the Petitioner's juniors were placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200, i.e. with effect from 22/02/2001 along with all consequential benefits like arrears, re-fixation of pension, etc.;” 2. Relevant facts are as under: By order dated 23/01/1965, the petitioner along with some others came to be appointed as a Forester in officiating capacity until further orders in the Pay Scale of Rs. 80-1-2-95-3-110 with other allowances admissible under Rules. By office order dated 08/03/1974, the petitioner came to be promoted as Range Forest Officer on purely temporary basis and until further orders in the Pay Scale of Rs. 170-10-290-EB-15-380 with other allowances as admissible under the rules in force. By Office Memorandum dated 5/7/1989, the respondent no.1 sanctioned Scales under the Time Bound Promotional Scheme(T.B.P.S.) to the employees of Group 'C' and 'D' with effect from 01/06/1989. Vide order dated 05/08/1992, the petitioner was awarded T.B.P.S. with effect from 01/06/1989 in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500, which happened to be the Pay scale of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Thereafter, by order dated 14/07/1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, Group 'B', on regular basis. The Pay Scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 6500-200-10500 as from 01/01/1996 pursuant to the order dated 27/10/1997 of Government of Goa accepting the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. Thereafter, by order dated 14/07/1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, Group 'B', on regular basis. The Pay Scale of the petitioner was revised to Rs. 6500-200-10500 as from 01/01/1996 pursuant to the order dated 27/10/1997 of Government of Goa accepting the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission. By Office Memorandum dated 9/8/1999, the Central Government introduced “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (A.C.P.S.) which is applicable to Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees and isolated posts in Group 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. By Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001, the Respondent no.1 adopted the A.C.P.S. in toto and made it applicable to its employees in place of T.B.P.S.. Then, by Office Memorandum dated 28/6/2001, the respondent no. 1, informed all concerned that the A.C.P.S. as per Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001 and Clarifications contained in the attached Annexure II should be strictly implemented. The said clarifications at Annexure II have been also issued by the Central Government. 3. According to the petitioner by so called promotion dated 14/07/1995, there was no change whatsoever in the Pay Scale awarded to him and as such, as a matter of principle, as also in view of the Clarification (Annexure II) contained in the Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001, he ought to have been awarded the benefit of up-gradation under the A.C.P.S. by counting 12 years of service from 01/06/1989, that is the date on which the petitioner was placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500. The petitioner was relieved from service on 28/02/2003, upon superannuation. 4. The petitioner has further alleged as follows: The Range Forest Officers appointed after him are today beneficiaries of A.C.P.S., as a result of which they draw higher Pay Scale as compared to the petitioner. The post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is a selection post and hence, at the time when the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests, the cases/candidatures of those other Range Forest Officers have been considered along with him even though they were junior to the petitioner. The petitioner states that since the said Range Forest Officers were found less meritorious than the petitioner, they were not promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The petitioner states that since the said Range Forest Officers were found less meritorious than the petitioner, they were not promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. However, primarily on account of these circumstances, the Range Forest Officers who are junior to the petitioner or who were found to be less meritorious than the petitioner are now in receipt of A.C.P.S. Scale, i.e. Rs.10000-325-15200, which has been denied to the petitioner. This according to the petitioner is arbitrary and such an anomalous situation is required to be set right by resort to FR 22 or on the basis of principles analogous thereto. 5. The petitioner addressed representation dated 09/11/2004 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, with a copy to Chief Conservator of Forests, Panaji. However, vide communications dated 06/12/2004 and 20/12/2004, which have been impugned in the present petition, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of A.C.P.S. on the ground that the petitioner is beneficiary of two promotions. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned communications completely ignore the significant aspect that the second promotion dated 14/07/1995 was not accompanied by any increase in the Pay Scale and further the aspect that juniors are in receipt of higher Pay Scale, has been also ignored. 6. In the affidavit-in-reply, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2, inter alia, it is stated as under: The purpose of A.C.P.S. is to give financial benefit to those who have not been promoted at all during the period of 12 years prior to the application of the scheme. The petitioner having received two promotions on regular basis and he having benefited from the same, is not eligible for any further benefits under the A.C.P.S., as has been clearly stated in the scheme itself. There exists no anomalous situation since the petitioner has already got promotion on 08/03/1974, within a period of 10 years from the date of his direct recruitment and thereafter, on 01/06/1989, he got the T.B.P.S., as a consequence of not being further promoted within 12 years from the date of his first promotion. The petitioner would have become eligible for the next financial up-gradation after 12 years i.e. after 01/06/2001, if the petitioner was not promoted by that time. The petitioner would have become eligible for the next financial up-gradation after 12 years i.e. after 01/06/2001, if the petitioner was not promoted by that time. However, the petitioner received his next promotion on 14/07/1995 i.e., within a period of six years from the date of his first financial up-gradation i.e., on 01/06/1989 and also a revision of Pay Scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996 under the Fifth Pay Commission. In any case, the petitioner would be eligible for grant of any benefits under the A.C.P.S. only 12 years after his last promotion on 13/07/1995, i.e., only on 14/07/2007. However, since the petitioner has retired from service on 28/02/2003, he is not eligible for any benefits under the scheme. 7. Insofar as the issue of other Range Forest Officers appointed after the appointment of the petitioner, having received benefits under the A.C.P.S., is concerned, on behalf of the respondent no 2, it was alleged as follows: They have been granted the same taking into consideration the fact that they have not received any regular promotions during the period of 12 years of service prior to the grant of benefits under the A.C.P.S., on 22/02/2001. The juniors to the petitioner who have been appointed after the petitioner, were all appointed initially to the post of Range Forest Officers as opposed to the petitioner who was appointed as Round Forester, which is a post lower than that of Range Forest Officers. Therefore, impugned communications ought not to be interfered with. 8. Heard Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents, at length. 9. Learned counsel, for the petitioner, submitted that the moot question which arises in this petition is whether for the purposes of granting benefit of A.C.P.S., the grant of promotion is relevant or whether grant of higher Pay Scale is relevant. He submitted that on 08/03/1974, the petitioner was promoted as Range Forest Officer and as he had put in more than 12 years in the said existing post of Range Forest Officer, he was eligible for T.B.P.S., and was accordingly, granted the same on 05/07/1992, with effect from 1/6/1989. He further submitted that though with effect from 14/07/1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, however, his Pay Scale remained the same i.e. Rs. He further submitted that though with effect from 14/07/1995, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests, however, his Pay Scale remained the same i.e. Rs. 2000-3500 and the revision at the rate of Rs. 6500-10500 since 1/1/1996, done by order dated 27/10/1997, was as a result of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. He submitted that there was no grant of higher Pay Scale in the case of petitioner, by way of promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Our attention was invited to the A.C.P.S. which provides for two financial up-gradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years respectively. According to the learned Counsel, since the petitioner completed 12 years of service in the pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-3500 on 01/06/2001, he is entitled to A.C.P. Scale with effect from 01/06/2001 in the next higher Scale of Rs. 39000-4500 revised to Rs. 10.000-325-15,200. 10. According to the learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, T.B.P.S. granted to petitioner should be taken as the first financial up-gradation. He further submitted that as from 01/06/1989, i.e. from the date of grant of T.B.P.S., the petitioner had put in more than 12 years of service and hence is entitled for second up-gradation, by way of A.C.P.S., as from 1/6/2001. He submitted that though the petitioner was promoted as Range Forest Officer on 08/03/1974, however, he stagnated there for about 15 years and in any case for more than 12 years. It is his contention that the said first promotion as Range Forest Officer is irrelevant insofar as T.B.P.S. or A.C.P.S. and the same had rendered the post of Range Forest Officer as 'existing post', and upon completion of service of 12 years in the said existing post, he was granted T.B.P.S., i.e. first financial up-gradation with effect from 1/06/1989. The learned Counsel further submitted that the second promotion dated 14/07/1995 as Assistant Conservator of Forests is no promotion at all for the purposes of schemes like T.B.P.S. or A.C.P.S. as the same did not involve any change in the Pay Scale. The learned Counsel further submitted that the second promotion dated 14/07/1995 as Assistant Conservator of Forests is no promotion at all for the purposes of schemes like T.B.P.S. or A.C.P.S. as the same did not involve any change in the Pay Scale. According to learned Counsel, the ratio laid down in the Judgment dated 07/03/2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 199/2005 (Shri Anand M. Mandrekar V/s. State of Goa and another) squarely applies to the present case since the second promotion is only on paper and did not give any financial benefits to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that some other Range Forest officers who were junior to the petitioner are beneficiaries of A.C.P.S. as a result of which they draw higher Pay Scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/-, whereas the petitioner remained in the Pay Scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/-. He submitted that though the said junior officers got only one promotion as against the petitioner who got two, however, the second promotion of the petitioner was only a paper promotion without any change of Pay Scale and hence the anomaly warrants correction. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the requirement of T.B.P.S., Introduced by Office Memorandum dated 05/07/1989, was that one should have stagnated in the same post and the said scheme did not speak about Pay Scale. He submitted that as per Clause 5 of T.B.P.S., a person was entitled to the same only once in the entire service. He submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 09/08/1999 pertaining to A.C.P.S. has, however, taken into account the fact that after every 10 years there is revision of Pay Scale. He further submitted that in terms of Clause no. 5.1, of this Scheme which replaces the T.B.P.S., two financial up-gradations are available to the employee only if no regular promotions are given during the prescribed period i.e. 12/24 years. He pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as a Forester in 1965 and got first promotion as Range Forest Officer In 1974 and second promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests from 14/07/1995 and hence he is not entitled for any financial upgradation, under A.C.P.S.. Our attention was invited to the point of doubt no. He pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as a Forester in 1965 and got first promotion as Range Forest Officer In 1974 and second promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests from 14/07/1995 and hence he is not entitled for any financial upgradation, under A.C.P.S.. Our attention was invited to the point of doubt no. 33 and clarification given by the Department of Personnel, contained in the Annexure II, attached to the Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001. According to the learned Advocate General, this clarification under Annexure II has to be necessarily read along with the clause no. 5.1 of the Conditions for grant of benefits under the A.C.P.C. under Annexure I. Learned Advocate General read out the entire clauses of A.C.P.S. He pointed out that the petitioner got one T.B.P.S. and two promotions in the entire service. 13. The learned Advocate General submitted that insofar as the case of Anand Mandrekar in Writ petition No. 199/2005, is concerned, the petitioner was a Police Constable for whom promotional post would have been of Head Constable, but he had chosen a different promotional channel which was of Police Drivers and therefore the clarification to Point of doubt no. 2 of the Annexure II was applied to him, according to which mobility under A.C.P.S. is to be allowed in 'existing hierarchy'. He further submitted that in any case the Petitioner of Writ petition No. 199/2005 did not get T.B.P.S. whereas the petitioner of the present case has already availed of the T.B.P.S. as from 1/06/1989. Hence, according to the learned Advocate General, the judgment in Writ Petition No. 199/2005 is not applicable to this case. 14. Lastly, coming to the question of other Range Forest Officers appointed after the appointment of the petitioner, the learned Advocate General, submitted that they were all appointed initially as Range Forest Officers and had not received any regular promotion during the period of 12 years of service prior to the grant of benefits under A.C.P.S., as on 22/02/2001. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to A.C.P.S. and there is no merit in the petition. 15. With the assistance of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully gone through the Petition and all Annexures thereto as also the affidavit-in-reply in the light of the submissions made by the both parties. 16. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to A.C.P.S. and there is no merit in the petition. 15. With the assistance of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully gone through the Petition and all Annexures thereto as also the affidavit-in-reply in the light of the submissions made by the both parties. 16. The Office Memorandum dated 05/07/1999, pertaining to T.B.P.S., was placed before us by learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments. It is clear that T.B.P.S. was available to the Goa Government employees of Group 'C' and 'D' including the Group 'C' employees who were eligible to be promoted to Group 'B' posts, who were continuing in the same post for at least 12 years. The said employees were entitled to it only once in the entire service. Therefore, the T.B.P.S. had nothing to do with the Pay Scale, for its applicability. The T.B.P.S. had also nothing to do with the promotions. Therefore, though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Range Forest Officer as from 8/3/1974, however, he was entitled for T.B.P.S. because he continued in the same post for more than 12 years (i.e. from 1974 to 1989). Admittedly, the petitioner, by order dated 5/8/1992 was awarded the T.B.P.S. w.e.f. 1/6/1989, as that was the date fixed for entitlement of T.B.P.S, as per the Office memorandum dated 5/07/1989. If within 12 years of promotion as Range Forest officer, i.e. within 12 years after 8/3/74, the petitioner had got further promotion, then he would not be eligible for T.B.P.S. unless he had completed 12 years or more from the date of his said further promotion. After grant of first T.B.P.S. as from 1/06/1989, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests w.e.f. 14/7/1995. 17. Vide Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001, the Government adopted the A.C.P.S. in toto and made it applicable to the employees of the Groups mentioned therein in place of T.B.P.S. It was clarified that the existing T.B.P.S. shall cease to be operative. Thus, as from 22/02/2001, the T.B.P.S. ceased to be operative and the A.C.P.S. came to be implemented. 18. 17. Vide Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001, the Government adopted the A.C.P.S. in toto and made it applicable to the employees of the Groups mentioned therein in place of T.B.P.S. It was clarified that the existing T.B.P.S. shall cease to be operative. Thus, as from 22/02/2001, the T.B.P.S. ceased to be operative and the A.C.P.S. came to be implemented. 18. The Office Memorandum dated 09/08/1999, issued by the central Government, pertains to the A.C.P.S. Some of the relevant clauses of this scheme may be stated as under: 3.1- While in respect of these categories also promotion shall continue to be duly earned, it is proposed to adopt the ACP Scheme in a modified form to mitigate hardship in cases of acute stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post. Keeping in view all relevant factors, it has, therefore, been decided to grant two financial up-gradations [as recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and also in accordance with the Agreed Settlement dated September 11, 1997 (in relation to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees) entered into with the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM)] under the ACP Scheme to Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years (subject to condition no. 4 in Annexure-I) of regular service respectively. Isolated posts in Group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories which have no promotional avenues shall also qualify for similar benefits on the pattern indicated above. Certain categories of employees such as casual employees (including those with temporary status), ad-hoc and contract employees shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. Grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall, however, be subject to the conditions mentioned in Annexure-I.” Condition no. 4 of the Annexure-I to the said scheme provided as under: “4.- The first financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial up-gradation subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In other words, if the first up-gradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings, etc this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly;” Condition no. In other words, if the first up-gradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings, etc this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly;” Condition no. 5.1 of the Annexure-I to the said scheme provides as under: “5.1- Two financial up-gradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast-track promotion through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial up-gradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him;” Condition no. 15 of Annexure-I provides as under: “15. Subject to Condition No. 4 above, in cases where the employees have already completed 24 years of regular service, with or without a promotion, the second financial upgradation under the scheme shall be granted directly. Further, in order to rationalize unequal level of stagnation, benefit of surplus regular service (not taken into account for the first upgradation under the scheme) shall be given at the subsequent stage (second) of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as a one-time measure. In other words, in respect of employees who have already rendered more than 12 years but less than 24 years of regular service, while the first financial up-gradation shall be granted immediately, the surplus regular service beyond the first 12 years shall also be counted towards the next 12 years of regular service required for grant of the second financial up-gradation and, consequently, they shall be considered for the second financial up-gradation also as and when they complete 24 years of regular service without waiting for completion of 12 more years of regular service after the first financial upgradation already granted under the Scheme.” 19. Subsequently, by Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001 the Department of Personnel issued certain clarifications to the Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001, which are attached as Annexure-II. The points of doubt at serial nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the clarifications thereon are as follows: 20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating his contentions, had submitted that the clarifications contained in Annexure-II to the Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001, inter alia, provide that the benefits under A.C.P.S. are limited to the higher Pay Scale and do not confer designation, duties and responsibilities of higher post and hence the basic criterion to allow higher Pay Scale in A.C.P.S. should be whether a person is working in the same Pay Scale for the prescribed period of 12/ 24 years. He thus submitted that so long as a person is in the same Pay Scale during the period in question, it is immaterial whether he has been holding different post in the same scale. He therefore submitted that the petitioner who has been in the same Pay Scale since 01/06/1989 is entitled to A.C.P.S. with effect from 01/06/2001. Though, the above contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner appears to be attractive at first blush, on a careful reading of the points no. 3, 4 and 5, however, we find it to be without merit. The clarifications referred to by the learned Counsel are not general but specifically pertain to points no. 3, 4 and 5. The benefit of said clarifications cannot be given to the petitioner. Point 3 pertains to a person who is appointed to a post on transfer (absorption) basis from another post. Point 4 to pertains to a Government Servant who is direct recruit in one grade and subsequently joins another post as direct recruit. Lastly, point 5 pertains to an employee, appointed initially on deputation to a post, gets absorbed subsequently into that post. The petitioner does not fall in any of the above categories. 21. Another contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner got T.B.P.S. as from 1/06/1989, by which his Pay Scale was increased to Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 and thereafter the promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 14/07/1995, with the same Pay Scale of Rs. The petitioner does not fall in any of the above categories. 21. Another contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner got T.B.P.S. as from 1/06/1989, by which his Pay Scale was increased to Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 and thereafter the promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 14/07/1995, with the same Pay Scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500/-, his first financial up-gradation should be taken as from 1/06/1989 and he is entitled for second financial up-gradation in terms of first part of clarification to point of doubt at serial no 33 of the Annexure-II to Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001, as from 1/06/2001, i.e. 12 years after 1/06/1989. The above submission cannot be accepted because of the second part of same clarification which says that in case of those employees who got first promotion and T.B.P.S. thereafter are not entitled for A.C.P.S. as they already received two financial up-gradations i.e. one in the promotion and second under the T.B.P.S. The petitioner got first promotion as Range Forest Officer on 08/03/1974, by which his Pay Scale which was Rs. 80-1-2-95-3-110(as Forester) increased to Rs. 170-10-290-EB-15-380 and thereafter as from 1/6/1989, he got T.B.P.S. due to which his Pay Scale increased to Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500. No doubt, after second promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Pay Scale of the petitioner remained the same as Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500. However, the petitioner had already received two financial up-gradations i.e. one on account of the first promotion as Range Forest Officer and second under T.B.P.S., which was incidentally equivalent to the Pay Scale of his second promotional post I.e. Assistant Conservator of Forests. The A.C.P.S. speaks of counting of entire Government service career of an employee. Hence, under no circumstances, the petitioner can be given benefit of A.C.P.S. 22. Condition no. 5.1 of Annexure-I, incorporated in paragraph 17 above, inter alia envisages that two financial upgradations under the A.C.P.S. shall be available only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed of by an employee. For that, however, entire Government service career of the employee has to be counted. The petitioner was appointed as Forester on 23/1/1965. Within 12 years from January 1965 i.e. on 8/3/1974, the petitioner got first promotion as Range Forest Officer and his Scale was increased from Rs. 80-110 to Rs. 170-380. For that, however, entire Government service career of the employee has to be counted. The petitioner was appointed as Forester on 23/1/1965. Within 12 years from January 1965 i.e. on 8/3/1974, the petitioner got first promotion as Range Forest Officer and his Scale was increased from Rs. 80-110 to Rs. 170-380. He enjoyed the benefit of the said increased Pay Scale of this promotional post till 31/5/1989, by getting increments every year. Since the petitioner did not get further promotion within 12 years from the date of first promotion i.e. from 8/3/74, he got the benefit of T.B.P.S. as from 1/6/1989. Since the petitioner got promotion as well as T.B.P.S., he falls under the point of doubt at serial no 33, of the Annexure-II. The Conditions for grant of benefit under the ACP Scheme, at Annexure-I are part of the Office memorandum dated 9/8/1999 i.e part of the A.C.P.S.. As per the Office Memorandum dated 28/06/2001, the A.C.P.S. has to be strictly implemented keeping in view the Office Memorandum dated 22/02/2001 and the clarifications to the points of doubt, contained in Annexure-II. Neither the said conditions under Annexure-I nor the said clarifications under Annexure II can be read in isolation. They are bound to be read as part of the same scheme. Hence, clarification to point of doubt at serial no 33, found in Annexure-II has to be read along with the condition no. 5.1 found in Annexure-I. The grant of two financial up-gradations on completion of 12 and 24 years is for the entire tenure of regular service. The question of excluding the first promotion as Range Forest Officer, which the petitioner availed of on 8/3/1974 and continued to be benefited by the conditions of service of that post, does not arise. The petitioner had availed two promotions one on 8/3/1974 as Range Forest Officer and second as Assistant Conservator of Forest on 14/7/1995 and in the mean time on 5/8/1992 was awarded the T.B.P.S. as from 1/6/1989. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the benefit of A.C.P.S., merely because after the grant of T.B.P.S., his Pay Scale was the same as that of the promotional post as Assistant Conservator of Forests. No plausible reason has been shown by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to why the first promotion of the petitioner as Range Forest officer should be overlooked or excluded. 23. No plausible reason has been shown by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to why the first promotion of the petitioner as Range Forest officer should be overlooked or excluded. 23. In Writ Petition No. 199/2005 (Shri Anand M. Mandrekar V/s. State of Goa and another), the petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable in Group 'D' post for which the promotional post is Police Head Constable whereas he had himself applied in March,1990 to the post of Police Constable Driver, Group 'C' which is not from the same hierarchy to which the petitioner belonged. The post of Police Constable Driver has a different promotional channel. The order dated 30/7/1990 of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Police Constable Driver mentioned that he was being promoted to the said post and hence the respondents claimed that having been promoted in 1990, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of T.B.P.S. However, it so happened that when the petitioner was appointed as Police constable Driver, and took charge as such on 30/7/1990, in the Pay Scale of Rs. 950-1400/-, he was already drawing the same Pay Scale of Rs. 900-1400/-as his Pay Scale, as Police Constable, was revised to Rs. 950-1400/-as from 4/4/1990. Thus, though he was shown to be promoted in the post of Police Constable Driver, in reality his Pay Scale had not changed. In those facts and circumstances, this Court held that in view of T.B.P.S., therefore it could not be said that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Constable Driver though it is treated as Group 'C' post since the Pay Scale in both the cadre had changed and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of T.B.P.S. either in 10 years as was initially envisaged or in 12 years as subsequently amended. The case of the petitioner was considered as falling under point no. 2 of Annexure-II. The petitioner in the said Writ Petition No. 199/2005 did not get two promotions as well as one T.B.P.S. as is the case with the petitioner of the case at hand. The petitioner of the present case does not fall under point no. 2 of Annexure-II. 2 of Annexure-II. The petitioner in the said Writ Petition No. 199/2005 did not get two promotions as well as one T.B.P.S. as is the case with the petitioner of the case at hand. The petitioner of the present case does not fall under point no. 2 of Annexure-II. In the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled to A.C.P.S. with effect from the date of appointment as Police Constable Driver w.e.f. 30/07/1990. In the present case, the petitioner got the promotion as Range Forest Officer on 8/3/1974 and till 31/5/1989, he enjoyed the benefit of increments every year as per the promotional Pay Scale of Range Forest Officer. In our view, the ratio in the said judgment dated 07/03/2013 is not applicable to the present case. 24. The other Range Forest Officers who got benefit of T.B.P.S. in 1989 and then A.C.P.S. in 2001, though they were junior to the petitioner, were all direct appointees to that post whereas the petitioner was initially appointed as Forester in 1965 and then promoted as Range Forest Officer in 1974 and then he got T.B.P.S. as from 1/6/1989. Since the said others were first appointees and had not got promotion within the time limit as prescribed in T.B.P.S., they got T.B.P.S. in 1989 which was their first financial up-gradation and since again for 12 years or more, they did not get promotion, they got the benefit of A.C.P.S. They, thereafter, got their promotions as Assistant Conservator of Forests. Their case was such that the scheme of A.C.P.S. was applicable to them, but the same was not applicable to the petitioner. Hence the question of refixation of the last pay drawn by the petitioner by stepping up of Pay under FR 22, etc. does not arise. 25. In view of all that is discussed above, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. 26. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.