JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the State through V.C.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier 2nd ACP which was given to this petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that an employee must meet standards/requirements for promotion, such as; passing of the departmental examinations, higher educational qualification etc. as prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules. However, in the year 2016 the respondent authorities came with an office order being No. 27 dated 06.09.2016 and by virtue of that the 2nd ACP which was withdrawn earlier pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2013, was modified and withdrawn and the petitioner was declared to be entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16.04.2001 itself. The said office order dated 06.09.2016 is part of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner (Annexure-5).

3. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has been declared to be entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16.04.2001, the natural consequences will be entitlement of MACP after completion of 30 years. He further submits that no criminal or department