JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 984-HP of 2010, dated 3.8.2011, vide which learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the present petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that an original application i.e. OA No. 984-HP of 2010 was preferred by the present petitioner before the learned Tribunal wherein the petitioner had inter alia prayed for quashing of order Annexure A-1 appended with the original application dated 22.12.2006, vide which, pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500 granted to him was reduced to Rs. 5500-9000. Reliefs prayed by the petitioner in the original application are quoted herein below. "i) That the impugned order Annexure A-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to re-fix the pay of the applicant forthwith alongwith all consequential benefits. Or ii) In the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to release the First Assured Career Progression under the relevant Scheme to the applicant, which has fallen due to him in the year 2000 with all consequential benefits. iii) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to this case before this Hon''ble Tribunal. iv) That the present original application may very kindly be allowed with costs. v) That any other and further reliefs which this Hon''ble Tribunal deems just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents." 3. The following facts are not in dispute. Petitioner initially joined the service of the respondents as a Mali on temporary basis on 01.03.1973 and thereafter, he was appointed as a Peon in July 1975, again on temporary basis under a specific scheme called the Source Book Scheme. Petitioner thereafter was appointed on ad-hoc basis as an LDC on 31.07.1985 on a pay scale of Rs. 260-400. In the year 1986, the respondent-Institute invited applications for the post of Library Assistant and Reference Assistant (Sanskrit) and Reference Assistant (Arabic). Petitioner applied for the post of Library Assistant. He was offered the post of Reference Assistant on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. 260-400. In the year 1986, the respondent-Institute invited applications for the post of Library Assistant and Reference Assistant (Sanskrit) and Reference Assistant (Arabic). Petitioner applied for the post of Library Assistant. He was offered the post of Reference Assistant on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. The ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner as such was without specifying the particular language in which he so stood appointed as Reference Assistant which as per the respondent - Institute was done as the petitioner was not possessing essential qualification for being appointed as Reference Assistant as he did not possess the requisite degree either in Sanskrit or Arabic language. Petitioner served as Reference Assistant on ad-hoc basis without his services being so regularized till 01.12.1993. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Professional Assistant w.e.f. 01.12.1993 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and under FR 22(c), his pay was fixed Rs. 1760 w.e.f. 02.12.1993. Thereafter vide office memorandum dated 24th December, 2002, the service of the petitioner was deemed to be treated regularized as Reference Assistant w.e.f. 30.04.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 revised to Rs. 4500-7000, further revised to Rs. 5000-8000 w.e.f. 01.07.1990. Vide same office memorandum, the services of the petitioner were further ordered to be regularized as Professional Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, revised to Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996. He was also given the first upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 19.10.2000 vide office memorandum dated 24.12.2002. 4. The records demonstrate that an audit objection was raised qua irregular grant of ACP to the petitioner, as is evident from Office Memorandum dated 29th August, 2006 (appended with the original application as Annexure A-6). It was mentioned in the said objection that as per Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government Employees introduced vide Government of India Memorandum No. 35034/1/97-Estt. (d) 9.8.99, if an employee already had got one regular promotion after direct recruitment, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under ACP Scheme. It was further mentioned in the said audit objection as under:- "During test check of records it was noticed that Sh. (d) 9.8.99, if an employee already had got one regular promotion after direct recruitment, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under ACP Scheme. It was further mentioned in the said audit objection as under:- "During test check of records it was noticed that Sh. Nokh Ram Professional Assistant had already got one promotion from Library Assistant i.e. from 14003200 to 1610-2900 on 2.12.1993 as per information supplied by the Dy. Secretary (Admn.) Sh. Nokh Ram was entitled to be treated as direct recruit from 30.04.1987 (the entire in the service book have been taken w.e.f. 12.12.86 which needs to also be corrected. Obviously the official was not entitled for the second financial upgradation w.e.f. 1.12.2000. This has resulted in overpayment of Rs. 19210 as detailed below. Period Due Drawn Dif BP Dif DA Total 5500-175-9000 6500-200 10500 2.12.2000 -21.12.2000 6725 7100 362 148 510 1.1.2001 - 30.6.2001 6725 7100 375 161 536 1.7.2001 - 30.11.2001 6725 7100 375 169 544 1.12.2001 31.12.2001 6900 7300 400 180 580 1.1.2002-30.6.2002 6900 7300 400 196 596 1.7.2002-30.11.2002 6900 7300 400 208 608 1.12.2002 31.12.2002 7100 7500 400 208 608 1.1.03-31.3.03 7100(subject to charge of DA w.e.f. 1.7.03) 7500 400 220 620 xxx xxx xxx Month Total and over payment 30 days 510 6 months 3216 5 months 2720 1 month 580 6 months 3576 5 months 3040 1 months 608 8 months 4960 Total 19260 In reply to audit memo No. 17 it was stated by the institute that according to letter OM No. 35034/1/97-Estt. (D) (Vol-iv) dated 10.02.2000 the official was entitled for personal up gradation. The reply of the institute was not tenable as the official was entitled of the second financial up gradation if he was not direct recruit on the post of reference Assistant/Library Assistant only on completion of 21 years of regular service as direct and as such recovery as stated above may be recovered under intimation to audit." 5. A Special Committee of Controller of Accounts and Director of Finance was constituted by the department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, which agreed with the observations of the audit. This led to issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 22.12.2006, which was impugned by way of original application before the learned Tribunal by the present petitioner. A Special Committee of Controller of Accounts and Director of Finance was constituted by the department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, which agreed with the observations of the audit. This led to issuance of Annexure A-1, dated 22.12.2006, which was impugned by way of original application before the learned Tribunal by the present petitioner. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application so filed by the present petitioner inter alia held as under:- "It may be pointed out here that the ACP Scheme was introduced on recommendations of the 5th CPC to deal with the problem of stagnation as a measure of safety net. The ACP scheme envisages grant of two financial step-ups on completion of 12 and 24 years of service to an employee, who has no promotional avenues or has not earned any promotion. Condition No. 5.1 of the scheme provides that "Two financial upgradations under the ACP scheme in the entire Government service career of any employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in situ promotion and fast-track promotion availed 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 upgradations 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 upgradation 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." The question would arise whether the applicant has already earned two promotions since he joined service as a temporary Mali and reached to the post of Professional Assistant while remaining in the same department and if not, whether he was entitled to the benefit of the ACP Scheme. No doubt, he joined as a Mali, but was subsequently appointed as a Peon (Group ''D''). Thereafter, he was appointed as an LDC. This could surely be a promotion for him from a Group D to Group C post. Further, he is shown to have been promoted as Reference Assistant in the Service Book, which post was upgraded as Professional Assistant on 2.12.93. Thereafter, he was appointed as an LDC. This could surely be a promotion for him from a Group D to Group C post. Further, he is shown to have been promoted as Reference Assistant in the Service Book, which post was upgraded as Professional Assistant on 2.12.93. So, According to us, applicant had already earned more than two promotions and no benefit of ACP could be given to him. The impugned order Annexure A-1 has, therefore, rightly been passed and calls for no interference at the hands of this court." 6. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as not only the said Tribunal erred on facts in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner during his course of employment with the respondent-institute had gained two promotions, but also erred in not appreciating that the right of the petitioner to receive benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme was to be construed from his joining the office as Reference Assistant at the first instance and further taking into consideration the fact that his subsequent promotion to the post of Professional Assistant was no promotion in the eyes of law as the pay scale of both the said posts stood merged in a single pay scale. No other point was urged. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India while defending the order passed by the learned Tribunal argued that the order which was passed by the respondent-Institution while revising the pay scale of the petitioner was a valid order as the same was done by the respondent-institution on the basis of report of a Special Committee which was constituted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, to examine cases of audit objections on account of wrong implementation of Assured Career Progression Scheme in Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla. In the course of his contention he also referred to the said report which is on record alongwith the reply filed by the respondents to the original application. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the order passed the learned Tribunal. 9. In the course of his contention he also referred to the said report which is on record alongwith the reply filed by the respondents to the original application. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the order passed the learned Tribunal. 9. A perusal of the records of the case demonstrates that Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India had constituted a Special Committee of Controller of Accounts and Director (Fin.) to examine the cases of audit objections on account of wrong implementation of ACP in the office of Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla. This Committee submitted its report dated 26.10.2006, which is on record. Qua the present petitioner, the Committee has held as under: "(10) Shri Nokh Ram, Professional Assistant: Shri Nokh Ram was initially appointed as unskilled Mali (Rs. 70-85) w.e.f. 1.3.73. He was subsequently designated as Peon (Rs. 70-85) w.e.f. 15.7.75 and promoted as LDC (Rs. 260-400) w.e.f. 31.7.85. He was appointed as Library Assistant (Rs. 425-700) on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 12.12.86 and again appointed as Reference Assistant on ad-hoc basis in the same scale of pay w.e.f. 1.5.87. His appointment as Reference Assistant was subsequently regularized w.e.f. 1.5.87. He was subsequently promoted as Professional Assistant (Rs. 1640-2900) w.e.f. 2.12.93. He was granted first financial upgradation to the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 w.e.f. 1.12.2000. Audit observation: Since he got already two promotions he was not eligible for financial upgradation under ACP Scheme. Observation of the Committee: Committee agrees with the observations of the Audit. Further, even if the appointment as Reference Assistant is considered as direct recruitment, since Shri Nokh Ram got one promotion to the post of Professional Assistant, he will be eligible for 2nd financial upgradation under ACP scheme on completion of 24 years of service from the date of his appointment to the post of Library Assistant/Reference Assistant on regular basis. Since he did not 24 years of service as on 1.12.2000, he was not eligible for 2nd upgradation from 1.12.2000. Thus, the upgradation given w.e.f. 1.12.2000 is not admissible." 10. Now, we find that this report of the Special Committee was not assailed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. Since he did not 24 years of service as on 1.12.2000, he was not eligible for 2nd upgradation from 1.12.2000. Thus, the upgradation given w.e.f. 1.12.2000 is not admissible." 10. Now, we find that this report of the Special Committee was not assailed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. The report of the Committee is dated 26.10.2006, whereas the original application was filed before the learned Tribunal in the year 2010. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal demonstrates that there is also a reference to an earlier original application filed by the present petitioner, which was withdrawn by him without seeking liberty to file fresh on the same cause. However, we are not making any further reference of the same and we are adjudicating the present petition purely on merits. It is a matter of record that petitioner was initially appointed as unskilled Mali on 1.3.1973 and designated as Peon on 15.7.1975. It is also not in dispute that thereafter he was promoted as an LDC w.e.f. 31.7.1985. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1986, the respondent-institute invited applications for the post of Library Assistant and Reference Assistant (Sanskrit and Reference Assistant (Arabic). Petitioner who applied for the post of Library Assistant was offered the post of Reference Assistant on ad-hoc basis on the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. He continued to serve as such till he was promoted to the post of Professional Assistant w.e.f. 1.12.1993. This was followed by office memorandum dated 24.12.2002 vide which services of the petitioner were ordered to be regularized as Reference Assistant w.e.f. 30.4.1987 and further regularized as Professional Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.1992. Now even if we take the case of the petitioner from the date on which he was regularized as Reference Assistant, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants us to, then also, we find that after his appointment as Reference Assistant against which post he stood regularized w.e.f. 30.4.1987, he was promoted to the post of Professional Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.1992. This factual position could not be disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. This factual position could not be disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. It is in this background that as petitioner was found to have gained one promotion to the post of Professional Assistant w.e.f. 2.12.1993 after his appointment against the post of Reference Assistant w.e.f. 1.5.1987, that the Committee found merit in the audit objection to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the said financial upgradation and he could have gained only second financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of 24 years of service from the date of his appointment as Reference Assistant on regular basis. It is not in dispute that as on 1.12.2000, the petitioner had not put 24 years of service from the date of his initial appointment as Reference Assistant. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute the fact that first upgradation under ACP Scheme could not be granted to an employee who had gained one promotion within stipulated period, i.e. 12 years from the date of his appointment. However, according to her, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professional Assistant was no promotion in the eyes of law as the pay scale of post of Reference Assistant and Professional Assistant stood merged into a single pay scale. The genesis of said plea is neither borne out from the averments made in the original application nor the said contention could be substantiated during the course of arguments on the strength of any document. In this background, according to us, there is no infirmity with the act of the respondent-institute which withdrew the upgradation granted to the petitioner under the aCp Scheme on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible for the grant of said upgradation as he had gained a promotion to the post of Professional Assistant from the post of his appointment i.e. Reference Assistant. Similarly, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner having gained promotion in the course of employment was not eligible to the benefits of ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years service, can also not be faulted with. Similarly, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner having gained promotion in the course of employment was not eligible to the benefits of ACP Scheme on completion of 12 years service, can also not be faulted with. Though the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the earlier promotions that were conferred upon the petitioner by the respondent-institute, however, even if we did not refer to the promotions which were conferred upon the petitioner earlier, even then, the petitioner was ineligible for conferment of benefits of upgradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.12.2000, as from the date of his appointment as Reference Assistant, the first upgradation could have been conferred upon him after 12 years from the date of his appointment as Reference Assistant and that too in case he has not gained promotion within the said time period of 12 years, which is not the case here. The petitioner as Reference Assistant was promoted to the post of Professional Assistant w.e.f. 10.10.1992 i.e. within 12 years from the date of his initial appointment as Reference Assistant. 11. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present petition nor do we find any infirmity with the order of the learned Tribunal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.