JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2; and Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.3 to 55. 2. This writ petition is filed on 24.1.2019 challenging the judgment and order dated 27.9.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (for short, 'CAT') in Original Application No.040/00290/2015. By the impugned judgment, the CAT held that service reckoned for the purpose of Assured Career Progression (ACP) would include the period during which the applicants before the CAT were working with the State Government and, accordingly, order dated 19/25.10.2012 as well as the consequential order dated 8.7.2015 were set aside. 3. The applicants before the CAT initially served under the Government of Assam. However, subsequently, on 1.1.2006, they were absorbed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short, 'ESIC') Model Hospital, Beltola, and, over a period of time, they were granted ACP benefits. 4. While setting aside the orders dated 19/25.10.2012 and 8.7.2015, the CAT observed that the said orders were issued on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000 which was set aside by the CAT on 9.9.2011 in the case of Kusal Kumar Sarma and another Vs. Union of India and others (O.A. Nos.278 & 279/2008) and upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.5454/2012 and 5480/2012. 5. In the cause-title, it is stated that there was no consideration of the Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training by the CAT. 6. Mr. Dutta, while not disputing the setting aside of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, submits that the said Office Memorandum was set aside not on the issue raised in the Original Application and, therefore, the CAT was not justified in passing the impugned order. 7. The Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, which is available at page-91 of the appeal papers. Mr. Dutta, while not disputing the setting aside of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, submits that the said Office Memorandum was set aside not on the issue raised in the Original Application and, therefore, the CAT was not justified in passing the impugned order. 7. The Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, which is available at page-91 of the appeal papers. reads as follows :- "F. No.35034/1/97-Estt(D)(Vol.IV) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi 110001 February 10, 2000 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject : ASSURED CAREER PROGRESSION SCHEME FOR THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum of even number dated August 9, 1999 regarding the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). Consequent upon introduction of the Scheme, clarifications have been sought by various Ministries/Departments and certain issues in connection with implementation of the ACPS. The doubts raised by various quarters, have been duly examined and point-wise clarifications have accordingly been indicated in the Annexure. 2. The ACP scheme should strictly be implemented in keeping with the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum of even number dated August 9, 1999 read with the aforesaid clarification (Annexure). Cases where the ACP Scheme has already been implemented shall be reviewed/rectified if the same are not found to be in accordance with the scheme/clarifications. 3. All Ministries/Department may give wide circulation of these clarificatory instructions for general guidance and appropriate action in the matter. 4. Hindi version would follow. (K.K. JHA Director (Establishment)". 8. A perusal of the letter dated 19/25.10.2012 (Annexure-7) of the appeal papers goes to show that while issuing the said order dated 19/25.10.2012, reliance was placed on Clarification No.6 and 29 of the Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000. The subsequent order dated 8.7.2015, in turn, relied on the letter dated 19/25.10.2012. 9. When the Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000 had been quashed, the clarifications provided in respect thereto will have no consequence. It is immaterial on what ground the Office Memorandum was quashed. When, admittedly, the subsequent orders dated 19/25.10.2012 and 8.7.2015 are based on the Office Memorandum dated 10.2.2000, the CAT was justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the present Respondents No.3 to 55. 10. Consequently, there being no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.