JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for following reliefs: i. For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order (s), rule (s), direction (s) or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order No. 50 dated 19/11/2018 bearing Memo No. 2415 dated 19/11/2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ application) whereby and where under the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi, Respondent No 3 while deciding the claim of the Petitioner in the light of direction given by the Hon'ble Court passed in W. P. (S) No. 4849/2013 dated 13/08/2018 has rejected the claim of the Petitioner in erroneous ground although the Petitioner is first entitled for fixation of pay scale equivalent Forester in the scale of Rs580-860 with effect from 18/07/1987 i.e. from the date of appointment/joining like Md. Ali Raza and accordingly Petitioner is entitled for 1 A.C.P. in the scale of Rs5500-9000/- with effect from 09/08/1999 on account of completion of 12 years of service under A.C.P. Resolution Memo NO. 2446 dated 17/11/2012) Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and revised pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 15/11/2000 and Petitioner is also entitled for 2 M.A.C.P. in the pay scale Rs.9300-34800/-with Grade Pay Rs. 4600 with effect from 01/09/2008 on account of completion of 20 years of service and further entitled for 3 M.A.C.P. in the grade pay Rs. 4800/- with effect from 18/07/2017 on completion of 30 years of service under M.A.C.P. Resolution Memo No. 2981 01/09/2009 (???exure-12) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. dated ii. For quashing the Office Order No. 45 dated 25/09/2020 corresponding to Memo No. 1890 dated 25/09/2020 (Annexure-9 to this writ petition) whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 3 arbitrarily and erroneously reject the claim of the Petitioner and not fixed the pay scale of the Petitioner like Md. Ali Raza & others, although the Petitioner is entitle for fixation of pay scale equivalent Forester in the scale of Rs580-860 with effect from 18/07/1987 Le from the date of appointment/joining like All Raza & others. iii. Ali Raza & others, although the Petitioner is entitle for fixation of pay scale equivalent Forester in the scale of Rs580-860 with effect from 18/07/1987 Le from the date of appointment/joining like All Raza & others. iii. Petitioner prays for a direction in the nature of Mandamus and directing the Respondents to fix the Petitioner's pay scale equivalent Forester in the scale of Rs580-860 with effect from 18/07/1987 i.e. from the date of appointment/joining like Md. Ali Raza & others and accordingly to grant Petitioner's 1" A.C.P. in the scale of Rs5500- 9000/- with effect from 09/08/1999 on account of completion of 12 years of service under A.C.P. Resolution Memo NO. 2446. dated 17/11/2012 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and revised pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 15/11/2000 and to grant 2nd M.A.C.P. in the pay scale Rs. 9300-34800/-with Grade Pay Rs. 4600 with effect from 01/09/2008 on account of completion of 20 years of service and further to grant 3 M.A.C.P. in the grade pay Rs. 4800/- with effect from 18/07/2017 on completion of 30 years of service under M.A.C.P. Resolution Memo No. 2981, dated 01/09/2009 (Annexure-12) issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi and accordingly other subsequent benefits, which the Petitioner is legally entitled to.” 3. Earlier the Petitioner had moved before this Court with a prayer for quashing the order passed by the respondents, whereby his claim for time bound promotion and/or ACP/MACP benefits was denied. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the parties, has quashed the order; whereby the ACP was denied, specifically holding that in absence of any provision in the ACP Rules with regard to break in service, the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefits. 4. For brevity paras 10, 11 of the order dated 13.08.2018, passed in W.P.(S). No. 4849 of 2013 is extracted herein below: “ 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). No. 4849 of 2013 is extracted herein below: “ 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). Admittedly, the petitioner joined the services on 17.07.1987 as Member of Flying Squad under Forest and Environment Department and till the date of passing of impugned order he has completed more than 25 years of service. But for the alleged absenteeism for the period from 02.09.2000 to 25.12.2007, the respondents-authorities treated that period as “Leave Without Pay” and on that basis the authorities denied the time bound promotion/MACP. (ii). The only question that now falls for consideration before this Court whether the period “Leave Without Pay/Extraordinary Leave” can be considered as break in service and whether the Scheme of ACP/MACP does provide that the period counted in “Leave Without Pay” shall not be reckoned for the purpose of computation of total period of eligible service of an employee for grant of benefit of ACP/MACP. (iii). For better appreciation of the matter, the relevant Rule 236 of the Jharkhand Service Code is quoted herein below: 236.Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government servant in special circumstances:- (i)when no other leave is admissible under these rules; (ii)When, other leave being admissible, the Government servant concerned applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave. From plain reading of Rule 236 of the Service Code, it appears that it nowhere speaks that grant of extraordinary leave shall be treated as break in service for the period extraordinary leave has been granted. (iv). From plain reading of Scheme of ACP dated 14th August, 2002, it appears that it also nowhere speaks that period of “leave without pay/extraordinary” shall not be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the total period of eligible service of an employee for grant of ACP/MACP and in absence of such stipulation made in the Scheme of ACP, the period in question ought to have been counted for computation of eligible service of ACP/MACP, pension etc. 11. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 is quashed and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order, for grant of ACP/MACP reckoning the period from 02.09.2000 to 25.12.2007 as continuity in service, within a period of twelve weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 5. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the respondents have passed the order dated 19/11/2018, which is impugned in the instant case. 6. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that apart from facts which was taken prior to the order passed by this Court, a new fact has been incorporated in para-4(xii) that the petitioner has misbehaved with one Shiv Kumar Prasad and used filthy languages. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this allegation is false and moreover, no departmental proceeding was ever initiated for the said offence. Secondly, when the order was passed in the earlier round of litigation this fact was not brought by the respondents before the Court and even otherwise, in the earlier round of litigation and even in this case, the issue is with regard to grant of time bound promotion and/or ACP/MACP benefits, which has nothing to do with these allegations. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents though admits the fact that for the allegation made in para-4(xii), no departmental proceeding was initiated, however, he contended that as per the ACP Rules satisfied service is required and due to this para-4(xii), it is proved that petitioner’s service was not satisfactory. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondents have issued Order dated 19/11/2018 (Annexure-7) pursuant to the order passed by the Writ Court in the earlier round of litigation where the only issue raised was with respect to grant of time bound promotion and/or ACP/MACP benefits. Now, in the impugned order taking a new ground for not granting time bound promotion and/or ACP/MACP benefits, for being services to be not satisfactory, banking upon the allegation made in para-4(xii), prima facie appears to be bad and mala-fide also. 10. Now, in the impugned order taking a new ground for not granting time bound promotion and/or ACP/MACP benefits, for being services to be not satisfactory, banking upon the allegation made in para-4(xii), prima facie appears to be bad and mala-fide also. 10. Admittedly, for grant of ACP benefits, this Court in the earlier round of litigation has categorically held that when there is no rule that leave without pay/ extraordinary leave can be considered as break-in-service and also there is no rule in the ACP/MACP that period counted in leave without pay shall not be reckoned for the purpose of computation of total period of eligible service, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled for ACP benefits. For the aforesaid reason, the Writ Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to pass appropriate order for grant of ACP/MACP. 11. However, the order impugned in the instant case appears to be an order in appeal over and above the Writ Court’s order. Admittedly, the State has not challenged the order passed in the earlier round of litigation and the respondents were directed to pass an order for grant of ACP/MACP reckoning the period from 02.09.2000 to 25.12.2007 as continuity in service. Thus, there was no scope for the respondents to take a new ground; even the new ground which has been referred to hereinabove in para-4(xii) does not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law, as the allegation have misplaced because no departmental proceeding was ever initiated and it appears that the respondents are bent upon not to give any benefits of ACP/MACP to this petitioner which is not sustainable. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 19/11/2018 (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. It further appears that even the respondent No. 3 has not gone properly with the grounds taken by the petitioner and he has also been misdirected with the fact that there was allegation against the petitioner to misbehave with his senior. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 25/09/2020 (Annexure-9) is also quashed. 14. 13. It further appears that even the respondent No. 3 has not gone properly with the grounds taken by the petitioner and he has also been misdirected with the fact that there was allegation against the petitioner to misbehave with his senior. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 25/09/2020 (Annexure-9) is also quashed. 14. The respondents are directed to pay the entire monetary benefits accruing from grant of ACP/MACP within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order; failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. 16. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stand closed.