JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order as contained in memo no 715 dated 01.02.2019 and 1123 dated 20.2.2019 (Annexure-4 & 5), which has been issued pursuant to resolution of screening committee in its meeting held on 7.1.2019 by which 1st, 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd MACP granted to the petitioner vide office order no. 3320 dated 1.8.2018 has been modified and cancelled. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the resolution of screening committee taken in its meeting dated 7.1.2019 (Annexure-3). Consequently, the petitioner also prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to forthwith grant 2nd A.C.P. and 3rd M.A.C.P. in the pay scale of Rs 10,000-15200 w.e.f. on 9.8.1999 and Rs 15,6000 to 39100 with grade pay 7600 as per 6th pay Revision as has been granted to similarly situated employee namely Shyam Narayan Dubey, Atnu Sarkar, Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and others in compliance of the order and direction of this Court rendered in W.P.S. No. 5262 of 2014. 3. The brief fact of the case as per the pleadings is that the petitioner got appointed as field assistant on work charge basis on 29.12.1966. Thereafter, he rendered his services against the vacant sanction post of field assistant without any complaint. He was granted promotion to the post of Research Assistant vide order issued on 31.01.1981. In the year 1985 the past services of the petitioner on the post of Field Assistant were regularized with effect from 01.04.1977. The petitioner did not get any promotion thereafter. He superannuated on 31.03.2010. 4. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.4634 of 2016, wherein, prayer was made for grant of benefit of ACP/MACP. The respondents since had not taken any decision in the matter, therefore, this Court vide order dated 01.12.2017, remanded the case of the petitioner, so that a decision could be taken by the respondent authorities. In pursuance to the remand, the respondent authorities took a decision on 01.08.2018, by passing of an order as contained in memo No.3320, to grant the benefit of 2nd ACP and third MACP to the petitioner in the respective pay-scales, counting his services w.e.f. 29.12.1966. In pursuance to the remand, the respondent authorities took a decision on 01.08.2018, by passing of an order as contained in memo No.3320, to grant the benefit of 2nd ACP and third MACP to the petitioner in the respective pay-scales, counting his services w.e.f. 29.12.1966. This order passed by the respondents, however, was withdrawn by passing of a subsequent order as contained in memo No.1123, dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-5). The fact further reveals that the respondents took the decision dated 20.02.2019, had convened a meeting of Screening Committee on 07.01.2019, wherein, the promotion to the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant to the post of Research Assistant on 31.01.1981 was considered as to be a non-cadre promotion, and hence, it was concluded that his services in the cadre of research assistant will be counted w.e.f. 1981. Applying this principle, the 12/24/30 years of services of the petitioner for granting him the benefit of 1st and 2nd ACP/ 3rd MACP was decided to be counted w.e.f. 31.01.1981, uptill the date of superannuation on 31.03.2010. Following the resolution of the Screening Committee dated 07.01.2019, the respondents immediately published an order as contained in Memo No.715, dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure-4) and decided that the petitioner will be granted the benefit of 1st & 2nd ACP in the pay-scale of Rs.5,500-Rs.9,000/- and Rs.6,500-10,500/-, respectively, counting his services w.e.f. 31.01.1981. Therefore, the benefit of 3rd MACP was dropped as the petitioner would not complete 30 years of service counting from 31.01.1981 to the date of superannuation on 31.03.2010. Accordingly, the benefit of 1st & 2nd ACP was granted counting his first appointment on the post of Research Assistant in the cadre; whereas, his service as Field Assistant was not taken into consideration. The resolution of the Screening Committee dated 07.01.2019 and office order dated 01.02.2019 are also challenged in the writ application. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service should be granted counting his services prior to 31.01.1981, as a result of which he will be able to complete 30 years of service prior to retirement on 31.03.2010. This is the service that he has rendered on the post of Field Assistant, appointed on 29.12.1966 as work charge, and thereafter regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977. This is the service that he has rendered on the post of Field Assistant, appointed on 29.12.1966 as work charge, and thereafter regularized w.e.f. 01.04.1977. He further contended that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of field assistant to the post of research assistant on 31.01.1981, is not a non-cadre promotion, relying upon the Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980 and its amendment dated 02.02.1980 and 09.08.1983. On the basis of the above submissions, it has been prayed for issuance of the writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondent Authorities to grant him the benefit of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP in the pay scale of Rs 10,000-15,200, w.e.f. 09.08. 1999 (revised) and 15,600- 39,100, Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- (revised), respectively, an improvement over and above what has been allotted to him by way of passing of the impugned orders. He reiterated that his promotion to the post of research assistant from the post of filed assistant should be considered as a cadre promotion and, therefore, having enjoyed one promotion, he would be entitled to get the benefits of second ACP and 3rd MACP, on completion of 24 years and 30 years of services, respectively, counting his services prior to 31.01.1981, i.e. on the post of Field Assistant, w.e.f. 1977, after his regularization. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that services of the petitioner on the post of Field Assistant is not a regular post. His appointment on that post was when he was under-age and the promotion granted to him was found from non-cadre post by Screening Committee. She further submits that department has granted petitioner 1st ACP and 2nd ACP in the pay Scale of Rs. 5500-9000 & 6500-10500 as per the decision taken by the Screening Committee wherein the committee after careful examination of case of the petitioner found that the promotion given to the petitioner was from non-cadre post and held that he was entitled for 1st ACP and 2nd ACP only, and accordingly office order no. 3320 dated 1.8.2018 has been modified and further in the light of aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee, 1st ACP and 2nd ACP was granted to the petitioner. 3320 dated 1.8.2018 has been modified and further in the light of aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee, 1st ACP and 2nd ACP was granted to the petitioner. She contended that the Screening Committee has sanctioned the benefit of ACP keeping in view all prevailing service Rules and law for ACP & MACP Scheme as well as opinion of the Department of Finance; as such, no relief should be granted to the petitioner. 7. It transpires from the pleadings that the case of the petitioner is on three (3) points: i. The services of the petitioner on the post of Field Assistant, w.e.f. 1966, and regularized w.e.f. 1977, is no more irregular, and therefore, it can be taken into consideration for calculation for grant of the benefit of ACP/ MACP at least w.e.f. 1977. ii. The promotion of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant to the post of Research Assistant cannot be said to be a non-cadre promotion, on the strength of the Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980, and its subsequent amendments dated 27.06.1980 and 09.08.1983 whereby, the post of Field Assistant has been included in the cadre rules. iii. The Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980 containing the mode off appointment and promotion, on different posts in the department, has already been declared as to be the rules governing cadre structure of the department, by this High Court in W.P.(S) No.5262 of 2014 that stands confirmed in LPA No. 617 of 2016/L.P.A. No. 99/2018 and analogous cases. 8. In relation to point no.(i), the exception taken by the respondents that the services of the petitioner on the post of Field Assistant is not a regular post and his appointment on that post was when he was under-age, has already been regularized by the respondents, vide order as contained in Annexure-10 of the writ application and the regularization of his service has been made effective from 01.04.1977. Therefore, there is no doubt or question in relation to the past services of the petitioner, being regularized and therefore, the ground that it could not be considered for computation of 30 years of service for grant of benefit of 3rd ACP is baseless. 9. Therefore, there is no doubt or question in relation to the past services of the petitioner, being regularized and therefore, the ground that it could not be considered for computation of 30 years of service for grant of benefit of 3rd ACP is baseless. 9. The ground is also not tenable in view of the fact that in all the three (3) impugned orders that are under challenge before this Court, in none of them, the case has been made out that the past service of the petitioner was not regular and therefore, his services could be counted only w.e.f. 1981, when he was promoted to the post of Research Assistant. Further, this ground has not been taken by the respondent authorities in the meeting of the Screening Committee, nor reflected in the subsequent orders passed, cannot now be taken in the counter affidavit. The order of rejection nowhere contains such decision and therefore, the respondents are not allowed to develop their case at this stage by filing of counter affidavit or showing of any other document. Now the law is well settled that the authorities are not allowed to develop their case at the stage of filing counter affidavit. The above is a settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill, 1978 (1) SCC 405 . 10. As far as second ground is concerned, it is in relation to the decision of the respondents as reflected in the impugned orders and the resolution of the Screening Committee that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant to the post of Research Assistant was not a cadre promotion. Thus, it can best be considered as to be a non-cadre promotion. This ground is not sustainable in the eyes of law, primarily for the reason being that the cadre structure of different post in the department is controlled by the Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980, in which at paragraph no.1, at its internal page no.2, it has been categorically stated that the employees from the post of Junior Research Assistant/ Silt Analyst will be promoted to the higher posts. At para-5, it has been elaborated that the post of Junior Research Assistant/ Silt Analyst, will include and stay equivalent to other posts of the department, as that has been narrated there under: This govt. At para-5, it has been elaborated that the post of Junior Research Assistant/ Silt Analyst, will include and stay equivalent to other posts of the department, as that has been narrated there under: This govt. resolution stood amended and clarified vide another resolution of the Govt. dated 27.06.1980. In that resolution, amendment has been carried out at paragraph-5 of the resolution dated 02.02.1980, to the extent of including the post of Field Assistant, as equivalent to that of Junior Research Assistant/ Silt Analyst. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the cadre structure of the post, in the department would necessarily include the post of Field Assistant, on which post the petitioner was already functioning. This proposition further got cemented vide subsequent govt. resolution dated 09.08.1983. Therefore, on the reading of the above three govt. resolutions, it is crystal clear that the post of Field Assistant, forms part of the cadre structure of the posts in the department, that is referred in the resolutions, from which, promotion to the higher post has been prescribed. 11. On the third point, it is to be seen that the circular dated 02.02.1980 has already got its authentication as cadre rule in existence in the pre-existing State of Bihar in the case of Shyam Narayan Dubey & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, W.P. (S) No. 5262 of 2014, wherein, this Court vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2016 in paragraph no.12 and 14 has held that the circular/resolution dated 02.02.1980 is a rule controlling the cadre structure of the department and prescribes mode of appointment and promotion on various posts. The case of the petitioner being that the post of Field Assistant is one of the posts that has been included in the cadre structure prescribed by the rules dated 02.02.1980, subsequently, amended on 27.06.1980 and 09.08.1983, is a case in point, which provides that the post of Field Assistant is part of the same cadre structure and therefore, the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant to the post of Research Assistant cannot be considered as to be a non-cadre promotion. As a matter of fact, this is a promotion that has taken place within cadre as per the provisions of Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980, read with resolution dated 27.06.1980. 12. As a matter of fact, this is a promotion that has taken place within cadre as per the provisions of Govt. resolution dated 02.02.1980, read with resolution dated 27.06.1980. 12. After going through all the three (3) points, it can be said that the service of the petitioner has to be counted prior to 31.01.1981, i.e. his service that was rendered as Field Assistant. Thereby, the petitioner would complete thirty (30) years of service before the date of superannuation in the year 2010. Hence, he will be entitled to get the benefit of counting of services as 12/24/30 years from the date of his appointment on the post of Field Assistant; when he got regularized in the year 1977. The petitioner has already got promotion on the post of Research Assistant on 3.01.1981 and therefore, there is no stagnation as far as the first promotion is concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner has not got any promotion and hence, the petitioner has suffered the stagnation, which made him entitled to get the benefit of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP on completion of 24 years and 30 years of service. The petitioner would comfortably complete thirty (30) years of service prior to the date of superannuation. Therefore, he is certainly entitled for the benefit of 2nd ACP & 3rd MACP in the respective scales/grade-pays. 13. The above dispute having been addressed, the only impediment that was raised by the impugned orders that the petitioner has enjoyed non-cadre promotion, stands rejected. There being no other dispute and the past service of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant is required to be counted, on such conclusion, the petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP. 14. In view of aforesaid findings, the resolution of Screening Committee meeting, dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure-3), Order contained in memo no. 715, dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure-4), along with Order contained in memo no. 1123, dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-5), are hereby, quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of 2nd ACP & 3rd MACP on proper computation in accordance with law. The Respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, this Writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.