JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. THE principal grievance of the appellants revolves around the observations in paragraph 6 of the impugned decision, which reads thus: "6. Submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme cannot be accepted for the reason that it already stands abolished. On the question that he has been granted benefit of higher pay scale, the petitioner would otherwise be entitled to the increments. This submission, therefore, cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, supra. In these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court as noticed above. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the post be merged with that of Clerk on which the petitioner is already performing duty. He places reliance on the material placed on record of the case. That will be a matter to be considered by the State. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. The entire process be completed not later than 1st October, 2012. No order as to costs." The appellants on affidavit in the present appeal have asserted that the factual position noted in paragraph 6 is incorrect. In grounds B and E, the appellants have asserted thus: "B. That the learned Single Judge below has gravely erred in not considering the submission made by appellant about benefits of ACPS and thereby holding that ACPS cannot be accepted for the reason that it already stands abolished, whereas the facts remain the appellant -State has resorted the ACPS after putting service of 8, 16, 24 and 32 years and further introduced in its place ACPS after putting in service of 4, 9, 14 years on a particular post. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. E. That the learned Single Judge has gravely erred in applying the ratio of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as the respondent and other Store Ledger Clerks were not appointed against any vacancy or substantive post but were engaged on daily wages as a casual employee. The services of the respondent and other incumbents in the category Store Ledger Clerks were regularized as per policies of the Government framed from time to time for such daily wages workers who have worked continuously for 10 and 8 years of service with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar years and posts were created in accordance with the strength of daily waged workers in respective circles and were thus not recruited in terms of provision of any R&P Rules. Moreover most of work charge converted into regular establishment including the category of Store Ledger Clerks were declared as Technician and further bifurcated in the ratio of 20:30:50 as. Technician Grade I, Technician Grade II and Technician respectively by granting three tier higher pay scales of Rs.4550 -7220, 4020 -6200, 3120 -5160 in the pre -revised pay Rules scales, which was itself a sort of promotion. With the implementation of the revised pay scale effect from 1.1.2006, it was stopped but vide letter No. FIN(PR)B(7) -59/2010 dated 9.8.2012. The appellant -State have resorted to ACPS and further introduced a new Assured Progression Scheme on completion of 4 -9 -14 years of service and in accordance with this scheme an employee who is not promoted to a higher post on account of non - availability of vacancy or non -existence of promotion avenues in the cadre shall be granted the grade pay, which is next higher in the hierarchy of grade pay given in the schedule of revised pay rules 2009 upto the maximum grade pay of Rs.8900. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2012 is liable to quashed and set aside in the interest of justice." 3. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2012 is liable to quashed and set aside in the interest of justice." 3. WE are in agreement with the submission made by the respondent that this is a new plea taken for the first time in the above paras and was not a matter of record in the reply filed to oppose the writ petition. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter for re - consideration, as we are of the considered opinion that if the appellants are right in asserting, as has been stated in grounds B and E reproduced earlier, that will go to the root of the matter. Accordingly, the impugned decision is set aside without expressing any opinion either on the merits of the rival contentions, which will have to be decided by the learned Single Judge afresh in accordance with law. 4. THE writ petition is restored to the file to its original number to be proceeded before the learned Single Judge under caption "High Court Expedited Cases". To be included in the consolidated list for the month of February, 2014 as