JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for regular promotion to the post of Assistant District Supply Officer with effect from 09.09.1992 and further to the post of District Supply Officer with effect from 09.09.1995. Further, prayer has been made for direction to the respondents for grant of 1st and 2nd ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 as an alternative remedy till the regular promotion has been finalized and to pay the arrears of salary accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has submitted that he does not want to press the prayer no.1 and has confined only to the prayer nos. 2 and 3. 3. Vide order dated 12.09.2018, learned counsel for the respondent-State was directed to obtain instruction and examine the matter as to whether the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision as reported in the case of Surendra Choudhary Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors , (2014) 1 JCR 12 (Jhr). 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State has fairly submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid decision. However, he submits that due to grounds taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit, case of the petitioner has yet not been considered for grant of the aforesaid benefits. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner initially joined the services under the State Government as on the post of Supply Inspector in the year, 1967. In the year, 1981 the petitioner was granted 1st Time Bound Promotion in the appropriate pay scale and was granted 2nd Time Bound Promotion in the year, 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed a regular promotion for the post of Marketing Officer in the year, 1997. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand in 2004 and after being relieved from Government of Bihar, the petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand and was posted as Marketing Officer. As per the Government scheme pertaining to grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme since the petitioner was entitled to the said benefits, the petitioner represented before the respondents vide Annexure-4 to the writ application for grant of the said benefits. As per the Government scheme pertaining to grant of Assured Career Progression Scheme since the petitioner was entitled to the said benefits, the petitioner represented before the respondents vide Annexure-4 to the writ application for grant of the said benefits. The petitioner also submitted representation for grant of regular promotion to the post of District Supply Officer. In the meantime, the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation from 30.04.2008. Neither the promotion was granted to the petitioner nor the benefit of ACP was extended to the petitioner. The petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that in view of the resolution for grant of 1st and 2nd Financial Upgradation in the form of Assured Career Progression Scheme, the petitioner is entitled for the said benefits but the respondents have not extended the same benefits which has affected the lawful claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has retired, having unblemished service career and having requisite qualification for grant of ACP benefits, therefore, inaction on part of the respondents in not granting the said benefits smacks of arbitrary exercise of power. 7. Counter-Affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 25.08.2018, it has been interalia submitted that the Department of Planning-cum-Finance, Government of Jharkhand has given opinion that the Departmental Screening Committee is competent to take decision with regard to the ACP as per resolution no.5207 dated 14.08.2002. It has further been submitted that the confirmation of service of petitioner has not been entered in the service book of the petitioner. Further it has been submitted that vide memo dated 07.08.2018, 14.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, the letters have been sent to the special Secretary, Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar to send the document/paper with regard to the confirmation of the service of the petitioner as evident from Annexure-B series to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Further it has been submitted that vide memo dated 07.08.2018, 14.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, the letters have been sent to the special Secretary, Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar to send the document/paper with regard to the confirmation of the service of the petitioner as evident from Annexure-B series to the supplementary counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the matter is placed before Departmental Screening Committee for grant of ACP of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018 and the Screening Committee deferred the matter with noting that the matter will be sent to the Departmental Screening Committee again after receiving the documents/certificates received from the Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar as per Annexure-C to the supplementary counter-affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of non-receipt of the required documents from the State of Bihar, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for grant of ACP benefits. 9. As against the submissions of the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to rejoinder affidavit dated 09.11.2012 and supplementary affidavit dated 02.01.2013 submits that the petitioner''s services is free from any blemish and, therefore, entitled to consideration for grant of ACP benefits. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the case of the petitioner has covered by the decision reported in the case of Surendra Choudhary Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors , (2014) 1 JCR 12 (Jhr). Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of 1st and 2nd ACP Schemes in the light of aforesaid decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and the decision taken thereof be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 11. It is needless to mention that if the grievances of the petitioner appears to be genuine and the petitioner is entitled to the said benefits, the same shall be extended to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.