JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the captioned writ applications, the petitioners have inter-alia prayed for quashing order dated 08.12.2010 whereby benefit of both the up-gradations under Assured Career Progression Scheme given to the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- and Rs. 5500-9000/- by virtue of order dated 19.01.2010 has been canceled and direction was issued to recover the excess amount paid in favour of petitioners; and further prayer has been made to grant the financial up-gradations, as ordered vide order dated 19.01.2010. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Stenographers Grade III in the pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- (revised). It has been averred that by virtue of circular dated 09.08.1999 relating to Assured Career Progression Scheme, the petitioners are entitled to get two financial up-gradations after completion of 12 years and 24 years of service, if they do not get regular promotion to the next higher post. It has further been averred that petitioners have not been granted their regular promotion to which they are legally entitled to. It has further been averred that in absence of Recruitment Rules in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, the Department adopted the Recruitment Rule of Revenue and Land Reforms Department, State of Jharkhand vide order dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure 2 to the writ application). In pursuance to adoption of above Rules, respondent no. 3 as per the pay-scale given in column no. 2 (x), passed order dated 19.01.2010 whereby the petitioners were granted both the financial up-gradations in the pay-scales of Rs. 5000-8000/- and Rs. 5500-9000/-. But, after issuance of that order all of a sudden respondent no. 3 issued another order dated 08.12.2010 whereby benefit of both the up-gradations under Assured Career Progression Scheme granted earlier to the petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-and Rs. 5500-9000/-by virtue of order dated 19.01.2010 has been cancelled and direction was issued to recover the excess amount paid in favour of petitioners, which is impugned in this case. 3. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Kanchan Kumari, A.C. to learned A.A.G. for the respondents. 4. 5000-8000/-and Rs. 5500-9000/-by virtue of order dated 19.01.2010 has been cancelled and direction was issued to recover the excess amount paid in favour of petitioners, which is impugned in this case. 3. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Kanchan Kumari, A.C. to learned A.A.G. for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been granted both the up-gradations taking into consideration their Recruitment Rules published on 10.04.2007 but while cancelling their earlier order dated 19.01.2010, the respondents did not consider the Recruitment Rules made in this regard by the Nodal department of the Labour, Employment and Training Department of the State of Jharkhand, which is binding upon all the departments including the Finance Department but instead thereto, they relied upon the circular of Finance Department issued on 03.10.2005, which is not proper as the same was superseded by subsequent Recruitment Rules, 2007 published on 10.04.2007. Moreover the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 is bad in law as the same was passed by the authority i.e. Labour Commissioner without any approval of the departmental head i.e. respondent no. 2 whereas order dated 19.01.2007 has a binding effect and as a matter of fact the impugned order is passed in total disrespect to the order passed by the Principal Secretary of the department. It has further been submitted that petitioners are holding the post of Stenographers in the office of the Chief Inspector of Factories as such the Chief Inspector of Factories is the ultimate controlling authority and also the appointing authority of the petitioners and it is settled principle of law that it is the appointing authority who is only the authority to take any decision with respect to its employee. Referring to Rules published on 10.04.2007, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in definition portion at clause 2(ii), it says that it covers the ASHU TANKAK and further at clause 1, it has specifically been mentioned that it is applicable from payable date, hence it cannot be said that benefit of pay-scale as mentioned at clause 2(X) is not applicable from retrospective date. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that financial up-gradations granted by way of ACP was cancelled without issuance of any notice to the petitioners in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that financial up-gradations granted by way of ACP was cancelled without issuance of any notice to the petitioners in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by span of time most of the petitioners have now retired. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have been accorded their due A.C.Ps as per the provision contained in Resolution dated 14.08.2002 issued by Finance Department. It has further been submitted that the Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand, who is not competent to sanction or issue any order of A.C.P. to the petitioners has gone beyond jurisdiction by revising the order issued by respondent no. 3 with retrospective effect. Hence, when the matter came to the knowledge of the authority i.e. respondent no. 3, after obtaining opinion from the Finance Department found that the order dated 19.01.2010 of ACP passed by the Chief Inspector of Factories to be illegal, accordingly passed the impugned order which needs no interference by this Court. 6. From pleadings available on record, it appears that the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the State of Jharkhand has issued one notification as contained in memo dated 10.04.2007 whereby Appointment (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 2007 for the purposes of appointment of Stenographers in all the departments and Mofassil offices has been notified for the purposes of fresh appointment and for giving promotion to the Stenographers. The said Rule was adopted vide order dated 20.03.2009 by the Department of Labour, Employment and Training Department, as evidence from Annexure 2 to the writ application, in which, at clause 2 (x) hierarchy of pay-scales of such stenographers have been given, which is mentioned herein below: ^^¼10½ vk'kqfyfidksa ds fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa ds in] mudk oxhZdj.k rFkk fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkj esa lfEefyr dksfV ds in ,oa muds oxhZdj.k rFkk muds fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkj fuEu Ádkj vFkok le;≤ ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj gksaxs%& in ØŒ inuke osrueku oxhZdj.k jktif=r@ vjktif=r izfr'kr nj fu;qfDr Ákf/kdkj 1 vk'kqfyfid xzsM&r`rh; 4000&100&6000 r`rh; Js.kh vjktif=r 40-00 Áfr'kr r`rh; oxZ esa fu;qfDr ds fy, izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh 2 vk'kqfyfid xzsM&f}rh; 5000&150&8000 r`rh; Js.kh vjktif=r 40-00 Áfr'kr rnSo 3 vk'kqfyfid xzsM&ÁFke 5500&175&9000 r`rh; Js.kh vjktif=r 20-00 Áfr'kr rnSo vk'kqfyfidksa dh dqy {kerk@in fdlh foHkkx esa 100 gS rks 40 in xzsM r`rh;] 40 in xzsM f}rh; ,oa 20 in xzsM ÁFke ds gksaxs ijUrq ;g vko';d vk/kkfjr inksa ds vuqlkj gh ÁksUufr ds inksa dks j[kk tk;sxkA** 7. So far date of applicability of the pay-scales are concerned, at paragraph one the same has been mentioned that:- ^^blfy, bl laoxZ ds dfeZ;ksa dks ns; lqfuf'pr foÙkh; mUu;u ;kstuk ds rgr ÁksUufr dk ykHk ns; frfFk ls bl ÁksUufr fu;ekoyh dh dafMdk 2 ¼10½ esa of.kZr inlksiku esa gh ns; gksxkA** 8. It is established principles of law that when any new Appointment (Recruitment) and Promotion Rule comes into existence, it supersedes the old Rules, if any. In the case at hand the petitioners have come up with the case that in absence of any specific Rule, the department has adopted the Rules of 2007 vide notification dated 20.03.2009 at Annexure 2 in which specifically in Clause 2(x) hierchary of pay-scales have been mentioned and in accordance with that the petitioners have been granted financial up-gradations, vide order dated 19.01.2010, as evident from Annexure 3 to the writ application, which from no angle appears to be illegal, beyond Rule. Moreover, most of the petitioners has now retired and recovery without proper procedure is also not permissible. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Moreover, most of the petitioners has now retired and recovery without proper procedure is also not permissible. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. For the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 is quashed and set aside and direction as contained in order dated 19.01.2010 is restored and it is held that the petitioners shall be entitled to get financial up-gradations as mentioned in Clause 2 (x) of the Rules, as mentioned in Annexure 2 to the writ application and recovery, if any made pursuant to passing of impugned order 08.12.2010 shall be refunded to the petitioners forthwith. 10. The writ applications accordingly stands allowed. 11. Consequently, I.A. No. 2478 of 2011 stands disposed of.