JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. This writ application has been filed challenging the illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties in not granting the benefit of 3rd Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) in the revised scale of pay. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into service on 14.8.1970 as Meter Reader/Clerk-B under the then Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) and subsequently it was changed to North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (hereinafter called as “NESCO”). After completion of 15 years of service in the same grade the petitioner availed First A.C.P. with effect from 30.11.1985. It is further averred that petitioner purportedly availed the Second A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service in 2000. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.11.2007 after completion of qualifying service of 37 years. 3. After retirement of the petitioner, the NESCO office issued the order on 24.4.2009 granting 3rd A.C.P. on completion of 30 years of service in the same grade/post with effect from 1.4.2005. The petitioner made representation on 10.4.2013 desiring to avail the benefit of 3rd A.C.P., but that representation has not been responded so far, resulting to file the present writ application seeking relief therein. 4. Per contra, the opposite parties filed counter affidavit refuting the allegation made in the writ application. It is averred that the petitioner entered into service on 14.8.1970 and after 15 years of service in one post he was granted Ist A.P.S. with effect from 14.8.1985. After completion of 30 years of service the 2nd A.C.P. was sanctioned vide office order No. 1293 dated 11.3.2003 with effect from 14.8.2000. It is further averred that the petitioner has not exercised his willingness to avail the Second Time Bound Advancement Pay Scale (TBA) on completion of 25 years of service, but T.B.A. benefit was availed after completion of 30 years of service. Be it stated that, grant of A.C.P. was not automatic, but to be allowed after screening of the eligibility by the Screening Committee taking into consideration of the promotional norms. For promotion passing of Departmental Accounts Examination as one of the promotional norms to be promoted to the higher post Clerkage. Be it stated that, grant of A.C.P. was not automatic, but to be allowed after screening of the eligibility by the Screening Committee taking into consideration of the promotional norms. For promotion passing of Departmental Accounts Examination as one of the promotional norms to be promoted to the higher post Clerkage. Since the petitioner has not fulfilled the promotional criteria i.e. passing of Departmental Accounts Examination during his service period, he is not entitled to avail the 3rd A.C.P. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief asked for. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only availed 2nd A.P.S and w as not given opportunity of availing 3rd A.C.P. He further submitted that passing of Departmental Accounts Examination is not the criteria to avail A.C.P., but the stagnation of the post is a condition precedent to avail A.C.P. He further submitted that the question of asking for option to avail the scale of pay or pay band is nothing to do with granting 3rd A.C.P. According to him since the petitioner was retired, but the A.C.P. Scheme directs for entitlement from 1.4.2005 the petitioner is entitled to the arrears and pension as per the 3rd A.C.P. scale. He relied on two decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14225 of 2010 (Aswini Kumar Das v. The Executive Engineer, Balasore Electrical Division, NESCO and another) and W.P.(C) No. 277703 of 2013 (Gopal Chandra Sethi v. The Executive Engineer, Balasore Electrical Division and others), wherein under similar facts this Court has granted 3rd A.C.P. benefit. Accordingly, he submitted to decide this case by following the aforesaid judgments. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that on 24.4.2009 the office order was issued by the opposite parties giving details of the Assured Career Progression in the following manner:- “12. ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION (ACP): This will be applicable to all the Non-Executive Employees/Workers up-to Supervisory-B w.e.f.01.04.2005 in three stages i.e. 1st ACP on completion of 15 years, 2nd ACP after 25 years and 3rd ACP after 30 years of service, if they continue in one post/grade. The benefit of ACP will be given only after screening of each and every case by the Screening Committee to be constituted by the Controlling Departments and all norms of promotion shall be taken into consideration for allowing ACP in different stages. The benefit of ACP will be given only after screening of each and every case by the Screening Committee to be constituted by the Controlling Departments and all norms of promotion shall be taken into consideration for allowing ACP in different stages. The financial benefit to the extent of 3% of the Basic Pay plus Grade Pay will be added on availing ACP in different stages and next increment will accrue one year after. If the Employee/Worker has already availed both 1st and 2nd stage of Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scale under the existing provisions, he/she will not be again entitled to the ACP in the revised pay. However, the 3rd ACP after completion of 30 years of service shall be applicable as stated above.” 7. He submitted that since the notification clearly explains that those who availed the 1st and 2nd A.C.P., they cannot avail 3rd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service even if the benefit is applicable with effect from 1.4.2005. Since the petitioner has availed the Ist A.C.P. and 2nd A.C.P. before retirement in 2007, he is not entitled to Third A.C.P. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination which is mandatory for getting promotion and due to lack of passing of such examination, he is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. scale. Moreover, he submitted that the decision of this Court as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case for the reasons, the petitioners in those cases have availed 2nd A.C.P. after completion of 25 years of service, but not the 3rd A.C.P. 9. The main point for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to Third A.C.P. in view of the notification issued by the opposite parties? 10. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has entered into service as Meter Reader/Clerk-B on 14.8.1970. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has availed Ist A.C.P. with effect from 30.11.1985 after completion of 15 years of service in the same grade. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has received the 2nd A.C.P. and he retired from service on 30.11.2007 after completion of 37 years of service. 11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has availed Ist A.C.P. with effect from 30.11.1985 after completion of 15 years of service in the same grade. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has received the 2nd A.C.P. and he retired from service on 30.11.2007 after completion of 37 years of service. 11. The petitioner has produced the copy of representation made to the Executive Engineer, NESCO, Balasore on 10.4.2013 i.e. after six years of his superannuation mentioning that he has availed Ist and 2nd A.C.P. after completion of 15 years and 25 years of service respectively. In the same representation he has mentioned that since he has retired from service on 30.11.2007 after completion of qualifying service of 37 years he was due to receive the 3rd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years. The opposite parties have produced the Service Roll vide Annexure-A/1 series in which the following endorsement has been made:- “T.0.0.No.-1293 Dt.11.3.2003 In pursuance of O.S.E.B. Office Order no.9565 Dt.16.4.88 and in accordance with O.O. No. 1389 Dt.22.2.2003 of A.G.M. (HRD) NESCO his pay has been fixed at Rs.6625/- P.M. w.e.f.14.8.2000 in the 2nd A.P.S. of Rs.4400-135.5075.150-5825 160-7905 on completion of 30 years of service in the same post. His next annual increment sanctioned raising pay from Rs.6625/- to Rs.6785 and Rs.6785 to Rs.6945/- w.e.f. 14.8.2001 and 14.8.2002 with financial benefit w.e.f. 1.8.2001 F.N. and 1.8.2002 F.N. respectively.” 12. From the aforesaid endorsement it is clear that on completion of 30 years of service, scale of pay of the petitioner has been fixed with effect from 14.8.2000 under Advancement Pay Scale. The aforesaid entry also finds support from the office order issued on 11.3.2003 vide Annexure-D/1. Thus, the petitioner has not successfully produced the materials to show that in 2000 he was awarded A.P.S. on completion of 25 years of service. On the other hand, it is clearly available from the materials as produced above to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has availed Second A.P.S. after completion of 30 years of service in 2000. 13. The petitioner relies on Annexure-1, where the pattern of A.C.P. has undergone changes with effect from 1.4.2005. On the other hand, it is clearly available from the materials as produced above to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has availed Second A.P.S. after completion of 30 years of service in 2000. 13. The petitioner relies on Annexure-1, where the pattern of A.C.P. has undergone changes with effect from 1.4.2005. Vide paragraph-12 of the said notification issued by the opposite parties, it has been clearly mentioned therein that if the employees-worker has already availed both First and Second stage of Time Bound Advancement Scale under the existing provisions, he or she will not be again entitled to A.C.P. in the revised pay, but however, 3rd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service shall be applicable as stated in the former portion of the said paragraph. In view of the clear notification issued in 2009 and the fact that the petitioner has already availed 1st and 2nd Advancement Pay Scale, which is also known as Time Bound Advancement (TBA), particularly he has availed the same after completion of 30 years of service in same post, he is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. as per the said notification. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further canvassed his argument to rely upon the decisions of this Court in Aswini Kumar Das and Gopal Chandra Sethi (supra). But after going through the decisions it appears that in those cases the petitioners have availed Ist and 2nd A.C.P. after completion of 15 years and 25 years of service respectively and they were denied A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service because they have not passed out the Departmental Accounts Examination which is one of the criteria for promotion. So, the fact and circumstances of this case, where the petitioner has already availed 2nd Advancement Pay Scale after completion of 30 years, is not the same as the fact and circumstances of those cases decided by this Court. Therefore, the decisions are not applicable to this case. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is indefensible. 15. Since the petitioner has not qualified under Annexure-1 having availed the 2nd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service and the decisions cited by the petitioner do not come to his aid, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. The issue is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 16. 15. Since the petitioner has not qualified under Annexure-1 having availed the 2nd A.C.P. after completion of 30 years of service and the decisions cited by the petitioner do not come to his aid, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. The issue is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 16. From the foregoing discussions it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to 3rd A.C.P. scale as per the revised scale of pay of non-executive employee-worker of NESCO issued on 24.4.2009 vide Annexure-1. Moreover, the petitioner having been retired in 2007, concerned notification being issued in 2009 and the representation made for 3rd A.C.P. by the present petitioner only on 10.4.2013 vide Annexure-3 after which the writ application being filed, the writ application is thus filed with delay and laches. It is settled law that if writ application is filed in delay and laches without any delay being explained with rational reason, the same has to be discouraged. Thus, the writ application stands defeated due to delay and laches. On the whole, the writ application being devoid of merits stands dismissed.