JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the reasoned order at Annexure-11 dated 29.10.2012 bearing memo no. 849 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Ranchi-Respondent no.5 as it has denied the benefit of A.C.P. to the petitioner and granted M.A.C.P w.e.f. 1.9.2008 on a lower scale of Rs.9300-34800 (P.B.II), Grade Pay-Rs.4200. The apparent reason impugned by the petitioner for holding so is that petitioner after his appointment as peon on 27.1.1971 was promoted as a Treasury Guard vide memo no.2377 dated 17.11.1973 i.e. within 12 years of his service and also got second promotion to the post of Correspondence Clerk on 11.9.1987 i.e. within 24 years of his service. Therefore, neither first nor the second A.C.P was payable in terms of the A.C.P. scheme contained in resolution no. 5207 dated 14.8.2002, Annexure-D to the counter affidavit of the respondent no.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that posting of the petitioner as Treasury Guard by the order dated 17.11.1973 has been treated as promotion by the respondents though from the order itself enclosed to rejoinder as Annexure-18, it is apparent that it was a transfer from the post of Peon in the Sub-divisional Office, Daltanganj to the post of Treasury Guard in the Sub-divisional Office, Latehar by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Palamau division, Daltonganj. Such transfer on a Class-IV post of Treasury Guard can never be treated as promotion for the purpose of denial of A.C.P. It is further submitted that even assuming that second A.C.P was not payable, petitioner holding the post of Correspondence Clerk is entitled to the benefits of first M.A.C.P in the scale of Rs.5000-8000, which is the corresponding higher scale of pay on grant of M.A.C.P. This again has been ignored by the respondent no.5 though similarly situated persons like Dashrath Rajak and Maheshwar Bhagat have got the higher scale of pay on grant of first A.C.P i.e. Rs.5000-8000 vide Annexure-2, Office order issued by the respondent-Superintending Engineer himself. It is urged that the Principal Secretary, Finance Department vide letter dated 27.8.2012 bearing letter no. 1791(Annexure-17 to the rejoinder) has also instructed that the next higher scale of personnel posted in the Clerical cadre in the Regional/Muffasil offices on their promotion are entitled to the scale of Rs. 5000-8000. It is urged that the Principal Secretary, Finance Department vide letter dated 27.8.2012 bearing letter no. 1791(Annexure-17 to the rejoinder) has also instructed that the next higher scale of personnel posted in the Clerical cadre in the Regional/Muffasil offices on their promotion are entitled to the scale of Rs. 5000-8000. It is submitted that under the A.C.P resolution dated 14.8.2002, petitioner was also entitled for the next higher scale. 4. Perusal of the said letter however shows that in case of two promotional avenues available, in view of the resolution dated 14.8.2002, while considering the grant of financial up-gradation to the incumbents posted in the Regional/Muffasil offices, the first A.C.P was available in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and second A.C.P in the scale of Rs.5000-8000. It therefore appears from the aforesaid documents that the respondent-Superintending Engineer is wrong in refusing the benefit of one A.C.P to the petitioner treating his transfer to the post of Treasury Guard through memo no. 2377 dated 17.11.1973 as promotion. If the petitioner is eligible for grant of A.C.P, he would definitely receive the next higher scale on due date i.e on completion of 24 years of service as per the A.C.P resolution, which according to the petitioner is w.e.f. 9.8.1999. In that eventuality, the scale of pay on grant of third M.A.C.P would also be materially different. 5. Respondents in their counter affidavit have justified the impugned order on the basis of the reason contained therein that petitioner has got two promotion in his service career within 24 years i.e. Treasury Guard and Correspondence Clerk. Therefore, he is not entitled to either of the A.C.P.s. It is their case that only upon completion of 30 years of service he has been granted third M.A.C.P in the corresponding scale of Rs.9300-35800 with Grade Pay Rs.4200, which is justified in the eye of law. 6. Upon consideration of the all relevant material facts noticed herein above and submission of the parties, it appears that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind of the relevant material facts. The transfer of the petitioner as Treasury Guard has wrongly been treated as promotion to deny him the benefit of A.C.P though he has completed 24 years of service by 9.8.1999. In such circumstances, a fresh consideration is required to be undertaken on the claim of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P/M.A.C.P in the right scale. The transfer of the petitioner as Treasury Guard has wrongly been treated as promotion to deny him the benefit of A.C.P though he has completed 24 years of service by 9.8.1999. In such circumstances, a fresh consideration is required to be undertaken on the claim of the petitioner for grant of A.C.P/M.A.C.P in the right scale. Therefore, the impugned order has to be interfered to that extent. 7. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the respondent no.5, Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Circle, Ranchi to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law within a reasonable time preferably 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above.