documents, and on their failure to do so, cannot continue to indulge and grant repeated adjournments.. Accordingly, owing to the lack of relevant papers and documents, we would not like to interfere with the impugned order solely on the assumption and assertion that grant of scale of Rs.200-250 (Revised scale of Rs.2610-3510) should be regarded as promotion and not mere re-designation. The petitioners must suffer the consequences of the fault on their part. 13. The petitioners have filed on record the order dated 6th July, 2010 whereby OA No.2507/2009 filed by Dhanpat Singh and four others claiming relief that they should be granted second financial upgradation in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. It was highlighted that the Dhanpat Singh and others had made an identical claim as that of the respondents, for they had prayed for treating the grant of pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 as the first financial upgradation and not as the second financial upgradation, but the prayer was rejected. We have examined the said decision in the case of Dhanpat Singh and others and find that OA No.2507/2009 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 6th July, 2010 on technical grounds and not on merits. The Tribunal had held that Dhanpat Singh and others had earlier filed OA.3008/2004 and had restricted their prayer for grant of upgradation in the scale of Rs.3050-4590 under the ACP Scheme from 1st October, 1999 with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. In the said OA, Dhanpat Singh and others had not raised the plea and ground that this scale should be treated as first financial upgradation and they were also entitled to pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, as the second financial
