2026:UHC:1827 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 568/2019, WPSS 539/2019 WPSS 582/2019, WPSS 583/2019 WPSS 812/2019, WPSS 1514/2019 WPSS 1519/2019, WPSS 366/2020 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment and order. However, for brevity, facts of WPSS No. 568 of 2019 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioners were appointed as Village Development Officer in Rural Development Department. All the petitioners have retired now. They had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1177 of 2012 and various other writ petitions, in which they contended that Government Order dated 8.3.2011, whereby ACP Scheme was introduced, provided for inviting option from State employees within 90 days, however such option was not invited from petitioners. Writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State Authorities to seek option from petitioners as per the letter/Government Order dated 8.3.2011 and to take decision within eight weeks, based on the option exercised by petitioners. (4) According to petitioners, the competent authority had called upon the petitioners to exercise their option in terms of the Government Order dated 8.3.2011 and petitioners did exercise their option for ACP Scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioners have been given pay scale admissible for the post of Block Development Officer as 2nd ACP and they were 2026:UHC:1827 also given pay scale admissible for the post of District Development Officer as 3rd ACP. He, however, submits that petitioners were entitled to Grade Pay of ₹5400 as 2nd ACP and Grade Pay of ₹6600 as 3rd ACP, while they were given Grade Pay of ₹4200 and ₹4600 as 2nd and 3rd ACP respectively. (5) Petitioners have challenged order dated 22.11.2018, passed by Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department. Perusal of the said order reveals that petitioners had made representation contending that the old system of time scale of pay, discontinued w.e.f. 1.9.2008, should be continued as discontinuance of that system has resulted in huge monetary loss to petitioners. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department considered the issue raised by petitioners in their representation and held that under ACP Scheme, petitioners would be entitled to three financial upgradation, while under the old scheme of time scale of pay, petitioners were entitled to only two financial upgradation in their entire career; Principal Secretary further held that the government policy, as contained in Government Orders dated 17.10.2008 and 8.3.2011, was approved by State Cabinet and it is applicable across the board to all State employees, therefore separate provision cannot be made for petitioners, who are serving on the post of Village Development Officer. (6) This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Admittedly, petitioners were granted benefit of 2nd and 3rd ACP as per the applicable policy, therefore their claim for Grade Pay of ₹5400 and ₹6600 as 2nd and 3rd ACP is without any basis. Thus there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.3.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d 462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA 58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.19 10:37:06 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1827