JUDGMENT : SUNEET KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri I.M. Pandey and Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Both the writ petitions are being heard and decided together on the consent of the learned counsels of the respective parties. 3. The facts of Writ Petition No. 5962 of 2017 is being referred to for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioners, by the instant writ petition have raised challenge to the order dated 01 October, 2015, passed by the third respondent- Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow, whereby, first A.C.P. granted to the petitioners on 01 December, 2008, counting their services w.e.f. 1998, has been recalled/modified computing the period for grant of first A.C.P. from the date of their merger i.e. 26 December, 2006 with the respondent department. As per the impugned order, petitioners are entitled to the first A.C.P. on 26 December, 2016, and thereafter second and third A.C.P. Pursuant to the impugned order, consequential orders have been passed, whereby, recovery of the excess amount paid, has been ordered to be recovered. It is informed that the recovery from the petitioners had been stayed by this Court. 5. The facts inter-se parties is not in dispute. 6. The first petitioner came to be appointed on the post of Clerk (pay-scale Rs. 340-550/-) in Zila Parishad Kanpur, under the Panchayati Raj Department of Uttar Pradesh. The second and third petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in same pay-scale with the U.P. Tribal Development, Directorate, Lucknow, on 02 December, 1986 and 31 March, 1989 respectively. The fourth petitioner was appointed Junior Clerk on 03 August, 1990, in the pay-scale Rs. 340-550/- (Revised payscale Rs. 950-1500). 7. Petitioners, thereafter, came to be appointed on deputation on the post of Senior Clerk with the third respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow; on different dates between 31 January, 1998 to 13 November, 1998, in higher pay-scale at Rs. 1200-2040/-. The pay-scale, subsequently, came to be revised w.e.f. 01 January, 1996 at Rs. 4000- 6000/-. This fact has been admitted by the State-respondents in their counter affidavit dated 16 March, 2018. Thereafter, vide order dated 26 December, 2006, passed by the third respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow, services of the petitioners came to be merged on their respective post with the third respondent, consequently, the lien of their parent department came to be terminated. This fact has been admitted by the State-respondents in their counter affidavit dated 16 March, 2018. Thereafter, vide order dated 26 December, 2006, passed by the third respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow, services of the petitioners came to be merged on their respective post with the third respondent, consequently, the lien of their parent department came to be terminated. The past services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department was to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits duly recorded in the order of merger. Thereafter, services of the petitioners came to be confirmed on 03 May, 2007, on the post of Senior Clerk in the same pay-scale Rs. 4000-6000/-. 8. The Government Order dated 04 May, 2010, was issued by the government introducing Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) Scheme to provide financial upgradation on three stages i.e. at 10 years, 18 years and 26 years from the date of initial appointment to tide over stagnation on the post. 9. The petitioners, herein, were granted first A.C.P. w.e.f. 01 December, 2008, counting ten years from the date of appointment, vide order dated 27 November, 2014. Thereafter, the Government issued the impugned order/direction dated 04.08.2015, addressed to the third respondent to withdraw the benefit of A.C.P. allowed to certain officers named therein, directing that all such officers and similarly placed other officers are entitled to A.C.P. from the date of their merger with the department i.e. from the year 2006, and not from the date of their appointment on deputation, accordingly, the third respondent directed that the excess amount paid to the petitioners from 1998 towards A.C.P. be recovered. The order dated 04 August, 2015, insofar as, it relates to the petitioners is also under challenge. 10. It is also relevant to point out that in consequence second A.C.P. granted by order dated 06 April, 2017 to the petitioners on completion of 16 years’ of satisfactory service, was also recalled/modified. The facts, briefly stated herein above, is not being disputed by the State-respondents. 11. 10. It is also relevant to point out that in consequence second A.C.P. granted by order dated 06 April, 2017 to the petitioners on completion of 16 years’ of satisfactory service, was also recalled/modified. The facts, briefly stated herein above, is not being disputed by the State-respondents. 11. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have committed an error in passing the impugned order on misreading of the Government Order dated 04 May, 2010, wherein, it has been categorically, provided that the services rendered by the government servants on deputation would count towards the entitlement of A.C.P. It is further submitted that recovery, that has been sought to be made is inequitable having regard to the fact that petitioners had since retired on the date of superannuation. Further, there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioners in obtaining the orders granting them A.C.P. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in Ram Murti Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2415 , State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and recently, the Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010) decided on 2 May 2022, observed and held as follows: “Such relief, restraining recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. A government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” 12. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.” 12. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents fairly submits that the Government Order dated 04 May, 2010, would apply upon the petitioners in computing the service period for entitlement of A.C.P.. He further submits that it has not being disputed in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are government servants and were working in different departments, they subsequently came to be appointed on deputation with the third respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, Lucknow, on a higher pay-scale and since then they have continued on the same post subsequently came to be merged with the department. He further submits that the services rendered by the petitioners on the date of recruitment by way of deputation, would not count towards A.C.P. and they have been rightly granted A.C.P. from the date of merger (2006) with the third respondent, after modifying the earlier order issued erroneously. 13. In other words, he submits that the State-respondents are justified in directing recovery after modification/cancellation of the earlier order, which was issued erroneously in teeth of Government Order dated 04 May, 2010. 14. On having considered the rival submissions of the parties, the sole question that arise for consideration is, as to whether the services of the petitioners’ appointment/recruited by way of deputation would count towards A.C.P. or from the date of merger with the third respondent. 15. The State Government on 04 May, 2010, issued a Government Order addressed to all the Secretaries/Heads of the department to implement the A.C.P. scheme pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Committee (2008). The Government Order, inter-alia, provides that all government servants appointed by way of direct recruitment on any post, from the date of their first regular/confirmed appointment, are entitled to pay upgradation on completing satisfactory continuous service of 10 years, 18 years and 26 years respectively. In other words the first A.C.P. would be granted on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service and the subsequent upgradation would be on completion of 16/26 years of satisfactory service, as the case may be. In other words the first A.C.P. would be granted on completion of 10 years of satisfactory service and the subsequent upgradation would be on completion of 16/26 years of satisfactory service, as the case may be. The Government Order further provides that in case a government servant in between earns a promotion, then he shall not be entitled to the subsequent upgradation but would be entitled to A.C.P. on completing that many years of service, from the date of promotion. The Government Order further provides that in case a government servant in between earns a promotion, then he shall not be entitled to the subsequent upgradation but would be entitled to A.C.P. on completing that many years of service, from the date of promotion. Para-2(i) and (v) reads thus: iSjk&2 ^^¼1½ ,ŒlhŒihŒ ds vUrZxr lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh in ij ÁFke fu;fer fu;qfDr dh frfFk ls 10 o"kZ] 18 o"kZ o 26 o"kZ dh vuojr larks"ktud lsok ds vk/kkj ij] rhu foRrh; LrjksUu;u fuEu ÁfrcU/kksa ds v/khu vuqeU; fd;s tk;saxs%& ¼d½ ÁFke foRrh; LrjksUu;u lh/kh HkrhZ ds in ds osrueku@lkn`’; xzsM osru esa 10 o"kZ dh fu;fer lsok fujUrj lUrks"ktud :i ls iw.kZ dj ysus ij ns; gksxkA ijUrq fdlh in dk osrueku@xzsM osru fdlh le; fcUnq ij mPphd`r dh fLFkfr esa foRrh; LrjksUu;u dh vuqeU;rk gsrq lsokof/k dh x.kuk esa iwoZ osrueku@xzsM osru rFkk mPphd`r osrueku@xzsM osru esa dh x;h lsokvksa dks tksM+dj mPphd`r xzsM osru ls vxyk xzsM osru vuqeU; gksxkA ¼[k½ ÁFke foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds :i esa vuqeU; xzsM osru esa 08 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok iw.kZ dj ysus ij f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;ku ns; gksxkA blh Ádkj f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds :i esa vuqeU; xzsM osru esa 08 o"kZ dh fujUrj larks"ktud lsok iw.kZ dj ysus ij r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ns; gksxkA ijUrq ;fn lEcaf/kr dkfeZd dks ÁksUufr] ÁFke foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds iwoZ vFkok mlds i’pkr~ ÁkIr gks tkrh gS rks ÁksUufr dh frfFk ls 08 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj ysus ij gh ÁksUufr ds in ij vuqeU; xzsM osru ls vxyk xzsM osru f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds :i esa vuqeU; gksxkA lEcfU/kr in ij jgrs gq, mDrkuqlkj f}rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u vuqeU; gksus dh frfFk ls 08 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus vFkok dqy 26 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus dh frfFk] tks Hkh igys gks] ls r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u dk ykHk vuqeU; gksxkA ¼5½ ,ŒlhŒihŒ dh O;oLFkk ykxw gksus ds i’pkr~ lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh in ij ÁFke fu;qfDr ds i’pkr~ laoxZ esa ÁFke inksUufr gksus ds mijkUr dsoy f}rh; ,oa r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u rFkk f}rh; inksUufr ÁkIr gksus ds mijkUr r`rh; foRrh; LrjksUu;u dk ykHk gh ns; jg tk;sxkA rhljh inksUufr ÁkIr gksus dh frfFk ds i’pkr~ fdlh Hkh n’kk esa foRrh; LrjksUu;u dk ykHk vuqeU; u gksxkA bl lUnHkZ esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd fnukad 01 tuojh] 2006 ls ykxw iqujhf{kr osru lajpuk esa ,d gh laoxZ esa ;fn leku xzsM osru okys in ij inksUufr gqbZ gS] rks mls] Hkh foRrh; LrjksUu;u dh vuqeU;rk gsrq inksUufr ekuk tk;sxkA** 16. The Government Order further provides that the government servant who have worked in any other government department on the same grade-pay, their services shall be considered for A.C.P. The government servant, who came to be transferred/recruited on deputation would also be considered for A.C.P. Para-2(vi)(vii) and (viii) is extracted: ^^¼6½ Áns’k ds vU; jktdh; foHkkxksa esa leku xzsM osru esa dh x;h fu;fer lsok dks foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds fy, x.kuk esa fy;k tk;sxk] ijUrq ,sls ekeyksa esa ,ŒlhŒihŒ dh O;oLFkk ds vUrZxr ns; fdlh ykHk gsrq u;s foHkkx ds in ij ifjoh{kk vof/k larks"ktud :i ls iw.kZ djus ds mijkUr gh fopkj fd;k tk;sxk ,oa lEcfU/kr ykHk ns; frfFk ls gh vuqeU; djk;k tk;sxkA ¼7½ ,ŒlhŒihŒ dh O;oLFkk ds vUrZxr foRrh; LrjksUU;u gsrq fu;fer lUrks"ktud lsok dh x.kuk esa Áfrfu;qfDr@okg~; lsok] v/;;u vodk’k rFkk l{ke Lrj ls Lohd`r lHkh Ádkj ds vodk’k dh vof/k dks lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼8½ dsUæ ljdkj@LFkkuh; fudk;@Lo’kklh laLFkk@lkoZtfud miØe ,oa fuxe esa dh x;h iwoZ lsok dks foRrh; LrjksUu;u ds fy, x.kuk esa ugha fy;k tk;sxkA** 17. Applying the mandate of Government Order to the admitted facts, in the instant petition, it is not being disputed by the respondents that all the petitioners, herein, were government servants working in various departments of the State Government, they came to be appointed on deputation in 1998 on a higher pay-scale/grade-pay. In the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the first A.C.P. however, since the petitioners continued with the third respondent on the same post without earning any subsequent promotion, were entitled to second and third A.C.P. counting the services rendered on deputation with the respondent department as provided under Para-2(vi) and (vii) of the Government Order. 18. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the subsequent Government Order issued on 5 November 2014 bringing slight modification to the A.C.P. Scheme. Para-9 and 11 of the said Government Order is pari materia with the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 4 May 2010 i.e. the services rendered by the government servant in any earlier establishment/department of the government, and/or the services rendered upon being appointed on deputation would be counted towards A.C.P. In other words, there is no modification or amendment in the scheme, save the entitlement of A.C.P. has been made applicable on completing satisfactory services i.e. 08 years, 16 years and 24 years as against 10, 18 and 26 years. 19. 19. Having regard to the A.C.P. Scheme as stipulated in the Government Orders dated 4 May 2010 and 5 November 2014, there is no ambiguity or any difficulty in holding that the petitioners are entitled of A.C.P. computing the period of service from the date of recruitment on deputation. In the backdrop of admitted facts, petitioners came to be recruited/appointed on deputation with the third respondent in the year 1998. On completing 10 years of service i.e. in 2008, petitioners were entitled to the second A.C.P. It is clarified that since the petitioners came to be appointed on the higher pay-scale on deputation they were not entitled to the first A.C.P. Thereafter, petitioners were entitled to earn the third A.C.P. on completing 26 years of service in 2016. The petitioners were granted A.C.P. by the third respondent vide orders dated 25 August 2010 and 7 April 2015 from their date of appointment on deputation in the department. The third respondent, however, on the directions of the State Government has recalled/modified the orders and consequential orders have been issued to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioners. The impugned order takes the date of merger (2012) for computing the period of service for A.C.P. which is erroneous. 20. Having regard to the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 4 May 2010, the petitioners are entitled to second and third A.C.P. on computing their services from the date of their respective recruitment on deputation since 1998 and not from the date of their merger with the respondent department in 2006. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 1 October 2015, passed by the third respondent-Director, Viklang Jan Vikas, U.P. Lucknow, in compliance of the order dated 04 August, 2015, issued by the State Government and all consequential orders directing recovery from the petitioners, is unsustainable and liable to the quashed. 21. Order accordingly. 22. The writ petition, is accordingly, allowed. 23. The State-respondents are directed to compute the entitlement of second and third A.C.P. from the date of appointment of the petitioners on deputation (1998) with all consequential benefits, including retiral dues. The petitioners are entitled to arrears, if any. 21. Order accordingly. 22. The writ petition, is accordingly, allowed. 23. The State-respondents are directed to compute the entitlement of second and third A.C.P. from the date of appointment of the petitioners on deputation (1998) with all consequential benefits, including retiral dues. The petitioners are entitled to arrears, if any. It is expected that the State-respondents shall complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, failing which, petitioners shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from due date till the date of payment on the amount due to the respective petitioners. No cost.