The case is simple and short. The applicant joined the respondents organization in a Group D post in 1988 and on qualifying in the departmental Competitive Examination was inducted in a Group C post and the respondents having taken the induction as direct entry level, granted ACP on completion of 12 years of service in 2003. The applicant had enjoyed the same. However, he could observe that certain other persons, who, according to him, are similarly situated, were treated in a different way, i.e. their Group D service had been considered, their initial induction in a group C post taken as promotion and accordingly, on completion of 24 years of service reckoned from their initial entry in the Group D post, they were granted the second ACP. The applicant represented for a similar treatment but the same had been rejected vide Annexure A-10 order dated 02-09-2011. Hence, this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To declare that the applicant working under ALHW is entitled to get the benefit counting his past s3rvice, Group D service for

grant of ACP/MACP Scheme;

(ii)To declare that Annexure A10 letter issued by the 2nd respondent is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and injustice;

(iii)To call for the records leading to Annexure A-1 to Annexure A- 10.

(iv)To issue appropriate orders directing the respondents to count the past service, Group D services of the applicant for the grant of ACPs/MACP.

(v)To issue appropriate orders to direct the respondents to reconsider and pass orders in Annexure A6 and Annexure A8 representations filed by the applicant;

(vi)To declare that the applicant is also similarly placed persons in respect of Annexure A4 letter issued by the 2nd respondents

(vii)Any other appropriate order or direction as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. Respondents have contested the OA. According to them, the decision communicated by them vide Annexure A-10 is in order and as such, the same does not warrant judicial interference. As regards similarly situated individuals, according to them, their cases are to be considered in a review DPC to be conducted in the near future and hence, the applicant cannot claim any benefit on the basis of the other cases.

3. After completion of pleadings, the case was heard. Counsel for the applicant argued that uniform treatment has not been given to the applicant inasmuch as his services in Group D had not been taken into account for ACP purposes.

4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of others is under review.

5. Arguments were heard and documents perused. If the respondents take the induction of the applicant in Group C post in 1991 as one of direct entry and reckoned the period of 12 years from 1991 and if the respondents propose to review the other cases, where the period of service rendered in Group D had been reckoned, in the wake of the review the period of service rendered in Group D post ignored for the purpose of ACP and if in their case too the date of induction into Group C be taken as the basic entry for the purpose of ACP, there cannot be any grievance to the applicant. Even otherwise, the applicant cannot be an aggrieved person as his initial appointment for the purpose of ACP has been taken as LDC and thus he was afforded the first financial upgradation in 2003. Since the respondents themselves have, after a conscious consideration, stated that the applicants service as LDC has been reckoned for the purpose of grant of ACP the same shall not be varied to the disadvantage of the applicant, on the basis of clarification, if any, issued in the past.

6. Hence, there is no reason for the applicant to be aggrieved as the decision taken by the respondents is to his advantage only. Hence, this OA is dismissed.

7. No costs.