JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant-State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 21.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1569 of 2006 (Reported in 2017 (3) JLJR 688 ). 2. The writ petitioners-respondents (hereinafter referred to as writ-petitioners) came before this Court challenging the order dated 15.01.2005 issuing show-cause notice to them and the order dated 17.01.2005 by which 2nd ACP granted to the writ-petitioner no. 1 was cancelled. 3. Two contentions were raised before the writ Court namely; (i) the State of Bihar has kept in abeyance the order granting ACP benefits to the Steno-Typists with effect from their initial date of appointment and, (ii) the post of Personal Assistant is a new post and, accordingly, when the writ-petitioners joined the said post w.e.f 11.08.1987 it was a new appointment. 4. The learned writ Court has observed, thus; 11. “It is admitted that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 15.05.1978 as Steno-Typist, petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 21.12.1972 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 28.12.1973 as Steno-Typist in the Secretariat Cadre. It is also admitted that their post was upgraded and merged with the post of Personal Assistant. The judgment of the Hon'ble Pata High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4944 of 1993 has already decided the issue, which is now binding on the State of Jharkhand also. As per the said judgment, initial date of appointment as Steno-Typist will be the basis of granting Time Bound Promotion or A.C.P. The Government of Bihar has also accepted the same and has passed orders granting A.C.P. from their initial date of appointment as Steno Typist. Further, as per the minutes of meeting contained in Annexure 7 of the Supplementary Affidavit, it is clear that the State of Jharkhand has also taken a decision to principally grant benefit of A.C.P. from the date of appointment as Steno-Typist. This decision was not implemented just because the similar decision of State of Bihar was kept in abeyance by the State of Bihar, but admittedly later on the order of stay has been withdrawn by the Bihar Government.” 5. Mrs. Chandra Prabha, the learned State counsel submits that in terms of the ACP scheme only on the completion of 12 years and 24 years of service a government employee can be granted benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP respectively. Mrs. Chandra Prabha, the learned State counsel submits that in terms of the ACP scheme only on the completion of 12 years and 24 years of service a government employee can be granted benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP respectively. It is contended that the writ-petitioners, who were initially appointed as Steno-Typist but subsequently granted pay-scale of Rs. 785-1210, on merger of their services in the joint cadre of Personal Assistants, can be granted ACP benefits treating their date of appointment as 11.08.1987 and not from the initial date of their appointment as Steno-Typists. 6. In essence, stand taken by the appellant-State of Jharkhand is that on merger of the writ-petitioners' service with the joint cadre of Personal Assistants, it was a fresh appointment of the writ-petitioners w.e.f 11.08.1987. 7. To examine the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant-State of Jharkhand, the import and the content of the government decision reflected in the letter dated 07.08.1987 and the letter dated 16.09.1987 become relevant. In none of these letters it is indicated that grant of pay-scale for the post of Personal Assistants would be treated as fresh appointment of the Steno-Typists who were appointed prior to 10.07.1979. In fact, none of the documents produced by the appellant-State of Jharkhand either before the writ Court or before this Court would indicate that the order contained in the letters dated 07.08.1987 and 16.09.1987 are the orders of fresh appointment or that grant of pay-scale of Personal Assistants to the writ-petitioners is by way of a fresh appointment. The writ-petitioners have taken a stand that it was by virtue of order dated 06.01.1995 passed in CWJC No. 4944 of 1993 that they became entitled for counting their services with effect from their initial date of appointment for grant of Time-Bound promotions and, therefore, ACP benefits also have to be granted reckoning their date of appointment from the date of their initial appointment as Steno-Typists. This stand of the writ-petitioners, that for Time-Bound promotion their initial date of appointment has been counted, has not been controverted or challenged by the appellant-State of Jharkhand. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned writ Court has rightly concluded that for extending ACP benefits the initial date of appointment of the writ-petitioners on the post of Steno-Typist has to be reckoned. 9. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned writ Court has rightly concluded that for extending ACP benefits the initial date of appointment of the writ-petitioners on the post of Steno-Typist has to be reckoned. 9. In the State of Jharkhand, the scheme of Assured Career Progression which is commonly known as ACP scheme has been implemented vide notification dated 14.08.2002 under which benefit of financial upgradation to the government employees has been granted w.e.f. 09.08.1999. Under the ACP scheme the government employees who had completed 12 years of service were granted 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and those employees who had completed 24 years of service by that time were also granted benefits of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999. There is no dispute that the writ-petitioners were appointed as Steno-Typist sometime between 1972 to 1978 and pursuant to a government decision, which is reflected in the letter dated 07.08.1987, they were granted pay-scale admissible for the post of Personal Assistants. Pursuant to the said government decision under which the post of the Steno-Typists who were working prior to 10.07.1979 was upgraded and they were included in the joint cadre of Personal Assistants. The writ-petitioners along with the others were, accordingly, granted pay-scale of Rs. 785-25-1135 vide letter dated 16.09.1987. 10. On the decision of the State of Bihar to keep in abeyance grant of ACP benefits to the similarly situated Steno-Typists, it has been brought on record that subsequently the State of Bihar has implemented its decision to grant ACP benefits reckoning the initial date of appointment as Steno-Typists as the relevant date. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that it was, in fact, a decision of the High Level Committee constituted by the appellant-State of Jharkhand pursuant to which ACP benefits were accorded to the writ-petitioners. 11. Before the writ Court the appellant-State of Jharkhand has pleaded that 1st ACP benefits were granted to the writ-petitioners w.e.f. 12.08.1999 on the basis of their date of joining to the post of Personal Assistants on 11.08.1987, however, 2nd ACP was granted to the writ-petitioner no. 1 on account of wrong information furnished by him and, accordingly, 2nd ACP granted to him was recalled vide order dated 17.01.2005. On the allegation of suppression of material facts and furnishing false information, it needs to be recorded that whatever information the writ-petitioners had furnished were all matters of record. 1 on account of wrong information furnished by him and, accordingly, 2nd ACP granted to him was recalled vide order dated 17.01.2005. On the allegation of suppression of material facts and furnishing false information, it needs to be recorded that whatever information the writ-petitioners had furnished were all matters of record. In their show-cause reply, the writ-petitioner no. 1 has specifically asserted that he has disclosed his seniority position and that he was granted 1st Time-Bound promotion on the basis of his initial date of appointment, that is, 15.05.1978 on the post of Steno-Typist and that the order dated 06.01.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4944 of 1993 was the reason why he has claimed benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP w.e.f 15.05.1978. This has not been challenged by the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ proceeding. 12. We have once again scrutinized the entire material brought on record and we find that the learned writ Court, in the above facts, has rightly concluded that the writ-petitioners are entitled for 1st and 2nd ACP benefits with effect from the date of their initial appointment as Steno-Typist and, accordingly, quashed the impugned orders dated 15.01.2005 and 17.01.2005. It is really bizzare to contend that on upgradation of a post or merger with another cadre it would become a fresh appointment. May be, the date of merger is relevant for preparing a gradation/seniority list, but in service jurisprudence there is no such proposition that in the event of upgradation or merger an employee would be treated as a fresh appointee. 13. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1569 of 2006 (Reported in 2017 (3) JLJR 688 ), L.P.A No. 504 of 2017 is dismissed, however, without costs.