Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143089 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15591 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harshit Pandey,Munna Pandey,Yashwant Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Munna Pandey on behalf of respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier petitioner has filed Writ Petition No 4302 of 2023 with a prayer that his claim for third ACP be considered. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.3.2023 that claim of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances Commissioner Kanpur considered the claim of the petitioner and by a reasoned order dated 28.7 2023 has rejected the claim. Relevant part of said order so far a petitioner no.1 is concerned is reproduced hereinafter: "शश्री अशशोक कक ममार ततिवमारश्री ककी व्यतक्तिगति पतमावलश्री एववं ससेवमापकससतिकमा कमा परश्रीक्षण तकयमा गयमा। शश्री ततिवमारश्री ककी तनियकतक्ति चतिकरर शसेणश्री कसे "मसेट" पद पर तदनिमावंक 01.04.1978 कशो ककी गयश्री रश्री। चतिकरर शसेणश्री "मसेट" कसे पद ससे तदनिमावंक 09.07.1986 कशो "तद्वितिश्रीय शसेणश्री ललतपक" तिरमा तदनिमावंक 31.05.2008 कशो "प्ररम शसेणश्री ललतपक" पद पर पदशोन्नतति प्रदमानि ककी गयश्री।" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a list was prepared on 22.10.2019 by the respondents wherein petitioner was shown to be entitled for 3rd ACP, however said benefit was not granted to him without any reason. However, he is not able to dispute that it was a tentative list since in the list itself it was specifically mentioned that "दसेय लमाभ लजिस पर तवचमार हशोनिमा हहै।". 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner has already retired and he has been granted maximum pay grade being in service for 26 years and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to show disparity and illegality in the impugned order, however, I find that from the facts mentioned in the impugned order, he is not able to show any disparity or illegality in it. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances since no illegality is pointed out by the petitioner in the impugned order, therefore, writ petition has no legal force. It is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad