JUDGMENT & ORDER : ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. The appellants (original writ-petitioners) are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14098 of 2016, whereby the prayer made on their behalf for being granted the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression (in short the MACP) from the date of their appointment in service has been rejected and it has been held that they would be entitled to such benefit under the scheme only after completion of 10 years of satisfactory service from the date of their respective confirmation. 2. The appellants (original writ-petitioners) were appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Pay-Scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- in Pay Band-2 vide Notification No. 5308(S) dated 31.07.2004 and 15.04.2005. The aforesaid appellants were confirmed in the pay-scale of Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. 3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar vide order contained in Memo No. 6271 dated 05.08.2016, rejected the claim of the appellants (original writ-petitioners) for the 1st Assured Career Progression (in short the ACP) in Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-, which was being claimed after completion of 10 years of service from the date of their appointment under the MACP Rules, 2010. The reason assigned in the aforesaid order was that such Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- would be admissible and payable to the original writ-petitioners only after 10 years from the date of confirmation in service or 14 years from the date of initial appointment as the period of confirmation has been fixed for four years to the Assistant Engineers for ACP under the MACP Rules, 2010. 4. It is required to be noted that the ACP scheme was brought about in the year 2003, which was aimed at granting financial progression to the government servants who had stagnated. The scheme, therefore, provided that on completion of 12 years and 24 years of satisfactory service, they would be given the financial progression subject to the conditions under such scheme. The aforesaid scheme of 2003 was modified with effect from 01.01.2009 and the Modified Assured Career Progression of 2010 came to be notified. The scheme, therefore, provided that on completion of 12 years and 24 years of satisfactory service, they would be given the financial progression subject to the conditions under such scheme. The aforesaid scheme of 2003 was modified with effect from 01.01.2009 and the Modified Assured Career Progression of 2010 came to be notified. Here, the scheme to give financial progression was dependent on the completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of satisfactory service of an employee, but subject to the consideration of grant of progression, if any, granted under the earlier ACP scheme or a promotion, if any, granted in the meanwhile. 5. The appellants (original writ-petitioners) challenged the aforesaid order of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, rejecting their claim on the ground that at the time when their services were confirmed, they did not get any financial progression and, therefore, claimed that the benefit of MACP ought to accrue to them on completion of 10 years from the date of their appointment in service. It was also agitated by the original writ-petitioners that on their confirmation in service with Pay Band-3, they were wrongly given the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in place of Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. 6. According to Section 8.1 of the MACP scheme of 2010, the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- has been made available to two pay bands, viz., (i) Pay Band 2 and (ii) Pay Band-3. This separate grade pay in two pay bands has been treated as separate grade pay for the purposes of grant of up-gradation under the MACP scheme by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training Establishment Department, Govt. of India vide letter dated 08.04.2013. Thus, the fallout of this is that the employees under the State of Bihar who are in the basic grade pay scale of Pay Band-2 + Rs. 5400/- are to be provide in-situ up-gradation in the pay scale of Pay Band-3 + Rs. 5400/- after completion of four years of service when their services would be confirmed. 7. Thus, the learned Single Judge on finding that the original writ-petitioners were confirmed in service on a higher pay scale in Pay Band-3 of Rs. 15600 to 39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, they would be deemed to have been granted financial progression at the time of their confirmation. 7. Thus, the learned Single Judge on finding that the original writ-petitioners were confirmed in service on a higher pay scale in Pay Band-3 of Rs. 15600 to 39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-, they would be deemed to have been granted financial progression at the time of their confirmation. Thus, under the MACP scheme, the next progression can be made available to the appellants (original writ-petitioners) only after having completed 10 years of service from the date of confirmation and not from the date of initial appointment. 8. After having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants (original writ-petitioners) were granted financial progression at the time of confirmation of their services on a higher pay band with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- and, thus, they are entitled under the MACP scheme for further financial up-gradation only after completion of 10 years of service, to be counted from the date of confirmation and not from the date of initial appointment. 9. So far as the admissibility of Grade pay of Rs. 6600/- to the appellants herein is concerned, it is clarified that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- is available with two pay bands, viz., (i) Pay Band-2 and (ii) Pay Band-3 and, therefore, has to be treated as a separate grade pay for each pay band. The appellants (original writ-petitioners) would only be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- on a further promotion and not before. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and for that reason, we dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal.