ORDER : 1. The Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar is before us in this special leave petition for assailing the judgment dated 25th February, 2025, passed by the Division of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 2915 of 2024 whereby the High Court dismissed the said intra-Court appeal preferred by the petitioner-High Court and affirmed the judgment/final order dated 23rd September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3903 of 2021. 2. The learned Single Judge, while exercising the writ jurisdiction in a writ petition filed by respondent No. 1-employee, quashed the order dated 9th January, 2020, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala declining the claim made by respondent No. 1-employee for grant of Second Assured Career Progression (ACP). 3. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the petitioner-High Court and have gone through the impugned order and the material placed on record. 4. Respondent No. 1-employee was transferred from his parent District to another District on his own request and as a consequence of the prevailing rules, he lost the intra-cadre seniority in the transferred district for promotion. However, the issue arose regarding the counting of his previous service in the parent District Court for grant of future service benefits including Assured Career Progression (ACP). Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Judge holding that the Officer had indulged in a cherry-picking exercise while declining the prayer of the employee. The writ petition was allowed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-to be paid by the District Judge and the High Court to respondent No. 1-employee. The said order was unsuccessfully assailed by the High Court in letters patent jurisdiction with the dismissal of the intra-Court appeal vide impugned judgment dated 25th February, 2025. The Division Bench, however, set aside the strictures passed and cost imposed on the District Judge. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently and fervently contended that the High Court failed to consider the import of the prevalent rules, i.e., Rule 4.8 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Rule Vol. 1, Part 1 to urge that only the service which counts for seniority and increments in a cadre against a post shall be reckoned for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. 1, Part 1 to urge that only the service which counts for seniority and increments in a cadre against a post shall be reckoned for grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The said rule reads as below:- “4.8: A government employee is also entitled to the benefit of fixation of pay under the Assured Career Progression Schemes notified by Government from time to time subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified; Provided that grant of benefit of such Scheme, shall also be subject to the following general terms of conditions: - (a) A Government employee, who forgoes promotion offered to him, shall not be eligible for benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme; and (b) Only the Service which counts for seniority and increments in a cadre against a post, shall be reckoned for the grant of benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.” 6. We are of the firm view that the said argument of learned standing counsel for the petitioner-High Court is misconceived. Clause (a) of Rule 4.8 is the only provision whereby the employee can be denied the benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP). 7. The said rule contemplates a situation wherein the employee forgoes promotion offered to him. Under clause (b), the service which counts for seniority and increments in a cadre against a post is to be reckoned for grant to benefit under the ACP scheme. The only restriction regarding the counting of service on transfer to another Sessions Division is provided under the Punjab Subordinate Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Rule 10(3) of the said provision stipulates:- “10. LIABILITY OF SERVICE TO TRANSFER: A member of a service may be transferred to any equivalent post: (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) On his written request, anywhere within the State by the High Court, if post is available subject to the following conditions: - (a) That he will not claim any seniority over and above the officials already working in the cadre of the Sessions Division to which he seeking transfer. (b) No T.A./D.A. will be permissible and he will not avail joining time provided that officials has put in at least 5 years of service in the Sessions Division in which he is initially appointed.” 8. (b) No T.A./D.A. will be permissible and he will not avail joining time provided that officials has put in at least 5 years of service in the Sessions Division in which he is initially appointed.” 8. A bare perusal of clause 3(a) would make it clear that the deprivation of past service is only for the purpose of counting seniority over and above the officials already working in the cadre of the Sessions Division to which the employee seeks transfer. 9. A holistic reading of the above provisions makes is clear that so far as the past service in the parent District Court is concerned, the said period of service put in by the employee would not be washed off simply because he sought transfer to another District. All that the employee would lose is the inter-se seniority in the cadre of the transferee District Court cadre. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error or infirmity warranting interference. However, the direction given by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the High Court that the cost of Rs.10,000/-shall be borne by the High Court is deleted in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. 11. The special leave petition is dismissed with the above observations. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.