JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 3rd August 2021 by which the writ Court has quashed the order dated 6th October 2017 and directed the respondents authority to grant benefit of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short, ‘ACP’). 2. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned SC-III submits that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed only on the ground that a government employee whose performance was not satisfactory is not entitled for the benefits of ACP in view of Clause-3 (vii) of the resolution dated 14th August 2002. 3. The writ Court has held that the allegations of unsatisfactory performance and unauthorized absence from duty by the petitioner are not supported by any order passed by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, the petitioner who became entitled for 1st ACP with effect from 9th August 1999 and 2nd ACP on completion of 24 years of service with effect from June 2008 cannot be denied such benefits. 4. After recording the following findings, the writ Court has proceeded to quash the order dated 6th October 2017, which was passed by the Director, Industries for the following reasons: “It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly, he is not entitled to get the said benefits. Admittedly, from the records it is apparent that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly w.e.f. 19.01.2009, which is much after the date when the petitioner is entitled to receive the benefits of two ACPs. On the date of completion of 24 years of service there was no allegation against the petitioner. Even if there is some complaint that the petitioner was not working in proper manner, but that allegation is absolutely vague, which is apparent from Annexure-11 to the writ petition, which is the impugned order denying the benefits of ACPs/MACP to the petitioner. From the internal page no. 4 of the said impugned order, I find that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is that he was not diligent in performing his duty and did not show any interest in his work. This allegation is absolutely vague. No specific instance has been given as to what led to arrive to the aforesaid conclusion that the petitioner did not take interest in his work. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated at that point of time against the petitioner. This allegation is absolutely vague. No specific instance has been given as to what led to arrive to the aforesaid conclusion that the petitioner did not take interest in his work. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated at that point of time against the petitioner. Admittedly, the fact remained that on the date of eligibility for grant of ACPs to the petitioner, there was no charge of any misconduct against him. Thus, since there was no charge or allegation of misconduct against the petitioner on the date of eligibility, this Court feels that debarring the petitioner from getting the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACPs by passing the impugned order dated 06.10.2017 (Anexure-11) is not proper. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of 1st ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and 2nd ACP w.e.f. June, 2008 respectively. The respondents cannot withhold the benefits of the ACPs to the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order dated 06.10.2017, contained at Annexure-11, is bad; consequently, the same is hereby set aside and quashed.” 5. In service jurisprudence, there is a fundamental distinction between promotion and grant of financial benefits inasmuch as irrespective of any vacancy occurring in the past or a government employee becoming entitled for promotion from the date prior to when the promotion is actually granted financial benefit under ACP Scheme has to be given from the date the government employee becomes entitled. In short, promotion cannot be given from a retrospective date whereas financial benefits can be extended to an employee by an order with retrospective effect from the date the government employee has fulfilled the eligibility for such benefits. Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 became eligible for 1st ACP with effect from 9th August 1999 and on completion of 24 years of service he qualified for the grant of 2nd ACP from June 2008. May be the consideration by the Director, Industries as regards entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for ACP benefits has been on 6th October 2017, the reckoning date for examining entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for 2nd ACP benefits shall be June 2008. May be the consideration by the Director, Industries as regards entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for ACP benefits has been on 6th October 2017, the reckoning date for examining entitlement of the respondent No. 1 for 2nd ACP benefits shall be June 2008. On that day, there was no proceeding initiated or pending or concluded against the respondent No. 1 for unauthorized absence from duty or even unsatisfactory service in respect of which State of Jharkhand has filed IA No. 11082 of 2022 for taking ACRs of the respondent No. 1 on record. 6. On a glance at the documents produced along with IA No. 11082 of 2022, we gather that ACRs of the respondent No. 1 for the period between 1993 to 2010 has been recorded by the Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. Without saying much, we would just indicate that ACRs of a Class-III employee is not written by the Managing Director, Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. And, just to indicate, the so-called allegation of unauthorized absence from duty does not survive in the face of the order dated 13th July 2007 passed in CWJC No. 8047 of 2001 whereunder the Patna High Court has issued the following direction: “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I direct that unless there be any valid reason for withholding payment, which if they are must be disclosed to the petitioner, payment of arrears of salary for the period, as indicated above, must be made to the petitioner within a period of three months form production a copy of this order before Director of Industries, Government of Bihar at Patna who would ensure prompt compliance of these orders”. 7. Therefore, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, LPA No. 116 of 2022 is dismissed, but without any costs.