Gita Mittal, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner seeks in this case restoration of the first financial upgradation as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme (herein after referred to as "ACP") w.e.f. 25th April 2004 when he completed 12 years of service with Central Industry Security Force (herein after referred as "CISF") and became entitled for grant of second financial upgradation as per MACP Scheme w.e.f. 25th April 2012.

2. The undisputed facts in the instant case giving rise to the writ petition are enumerated that as per the ACP scheme other than completion of 12 years of continuous service in the post of Constable, an employee of the CISF is required to have completed 12 years from the date of appointment to a post without any promotional financial benefit being made available to him and he should have also successfully undertaken the Promotion Cadre Course (herein after referred to as "PCC").

3. The petitioner has stated that an employee is granted three chances for successful completion of promotion cadre course as per the applicable ACP Scheme which has been placed before us. This is uncontroverted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had completed 12 years of service on 25th April, 2004 and was offered an opportunity to undergo PCC pursuant to an offer made only in June, 2004, which the petitioner could not avail by submitting the unwillingness to the respondents. Although the petitioner was again detailed for the promotion cadre course from 16th August, 2004 to 2nd October, 2004, he unfortunately failed in the same, but qualified in the supplementary PCC conducted from 23rd March 2005 to 30th March 2005.

5. It is also an admitted fact before us that the petitioner was granted financial upgradation by the respondents w.e.f. 25th April 2004. The record placed before us shows that the petitioner successfully qualified the promotional cadre course and the result of the same was informed on 3rd June, 2005 by the respondent.

6. It appears that prior thereto the respondents have issued an order dated 4th May, 2005 whereby the ACP benefit granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 25th April, 2004 was cancelled due to his submission of unwillingness to undergo PCC commencing from 7th June, 2004 to 24th July, 2004 and his failure in the promotion cadre course which was held w.e.f. 16th August, 2004 to 2nd October, 2004 which he has undertaken as his second chance. As a result, the respondents proceeded to recover the amount paid to the petitioner towards his financial upgradation from 25th April, 2004. The petitioner's representations to respondents were of no avail. The respondent however, proceeded to re-grant the ACP upgradation to the petitioner by order passed on 9th September 2005 which was made effective only from 6th September, 2005. The petitioner was thus denied the benefit of the financial upgradation w.e.f. 25th April 2004 to 5th September, 2005.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have done grave injustice to the petitioner inasmuch as the ACP upgradation could not have been withdrawn. It is further contended that a person becomes eligible for consideration for grant of the ACP upon completing the requisite number of years of service which the petitioner had already completed on 25th April, 2004. The manner in which the respondents worked the ACP Scheme is that the effective date for consideration of the person for entitlement of the grant of financial upgradation is the date on which he acquires the requisite number of years of service in a post without any promotional opportunities being made available to him. It is urged that the completion of the actual PCC would have no effect on the effective date of grant of financial benefits inasmuch as all employees undergo the PCC only after having become eligible for grant of ACP Scheme. It is urged that the same is apparent from the fact that the respondents granted the ACP upgradation to the petitioner w.e.f. 25th Ap