JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of letter dated 31.07.2019 contained in Annexure-9 so far as the petitioner is concerned, whereby the claim of the petitioner with the regard to benefit of Second Assured Carrier Progression (A.C.P.) and the third Modified Assured Carrier Progression (M.A.C.P.) has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Typist-cum-Clerk vide Memo dated 02.01.1986 issued by Adult-cum-Non formal Education Officer, Dumka. He joined on 07.01.1996 in the office of Adult Education Project, Pakuria (Sahebganj) in pay scale of 580-10-620-15-770-EB-15-860 and the service book of the petitioner was opened. He submits that after re-organization of state of Bihar, the employees who were working within the Jharkhand State became the employees of the State of Jharkhand and thus, the petitioner also became the employee of the State of Jharkhand. The Government of Jharkhand w.e.f. 16.05.2001 purported to abolish the entire establishment of non-formal education. The Department of Human Resource Development, Jharkhand by Notification dated 31.01.2002 decided to scrutinize all the surplus employees of non-formal education and requested to respective persons to submit the complete bio-data. The petitioner submitted his respective complete bio-data giving full particulars of his appointment as Adult Education Clerks. The adjustment/absorption of all the employees of Adult-cum-Non Formal Education was done vide Resolution dated 30.05.2007 issued by the Department of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner was absorbed as clerk in upgraded +2 High School Jama, Dumka vide Memo dated 01.02.2008 issued by the Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand. The name of the petitioner reflects at Serial No. 163 of the list. The petitioner has received arrear of salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till the date of re-adjustment. He submits that the past service of the petitioner has not been counted till the date of re-adjustment. The name of the petitioner reflects at Serial No. 163 of the list. The petitioner has received arrear of salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till the date of re-adjustment. He submits that the past service of the petitioner has not been counted till the date of re-adjustment. He submits that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to second Assured Carrier Progression (A.C.P.), the past service of the petitioner has not been counted which has been challenged in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that past service of the petitioner has not been counted which is arbitrary in nature. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned G.A.-IV, appearing for the respondent-State submits that this issue has been set at rest in view of Full Bench Judgement of this Court and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 505-531 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.27922-27948 of 2017. He submits that the said notification dated 30th May, 2007 has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 3 and 4 of the S.L.P. The relevant para 3 & 4 of the S.L.P. is quoted here-in-below:- “3. The Government of Jharkhand issued a notification dated 30th May, 2007 for absorption of the employees engaged in the Project in the Departments of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, Finance, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Urban Development etc. on different posts, in their respective prescribed scales of pay. A perusal of the said notification shows that there were 756 employees who were declared as surplus and were to be absorbed by the State. It appears that most of the surplus appointments starting from 24th July, 2007 except those who had attained the age of superannuation or had died prior to such absorption. 4. As per Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification dated 30th May, 2007, the surplus employees absorbed were to be treated as new appointments and the services rendered by them prior to their declaration as surplus i.e. prior to 15th May, 2001, would not be counted for the purpose of their seniority and pay protection. Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification read as under:- “11. Clauses 11 and 12 of the notification read as under:- “11. The adjustment of surplus personnels will be considered new appointment and being surplus on the basis of prior service, they will not be benefitted of seniority. 12. These surplus personnels will not be benefitted by pay notification.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 26 of the aforesaid S.L.P. has came to the finding as under:- “26. Since the appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension. We, thus, do not find any error in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.”. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner distinguishes the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submits that this judgment is with regard to pension only and in that view of the matter for Second A.C.P. and Third Modified A.C.P., this judgment is not applicable. 9. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted by the Court in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already decided this matter and the past service for pension has not been counted for pension. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-7 to the writ petition submits that service of the petitioner from 16.05.2001 to 03.02.2008 has been treated as regular. 11. This Annexure-7 is not acceptable in view of the clear-cut finding of the Full Bench decision of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that the Annexure-7 is contrary to the judgment of the High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. In view of above facts and considering the Full Bench judgment of this Court and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.