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. 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. g