IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that there is a provision for representation and complaints against weak points and adverse assessment in the ACR, and the petitioner's representation for upgradation should be considered.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the impugned order No. 1.11011/A-2012/714, dated 26.05.2012 and order No. 113643/11 AR/PGC-2013/1196, dated 23.10.2013 as well as order No. I.1555/Milap Chand (11 AR)/A/2015/682, dated 12.09.2015 and also for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant/extend 2nd Financial up-gradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme from the grade pay of Rs.2400/- to Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01/09/2008 and consequential benefits (3rd MACPs).

2. On going through this petition, it is understood that the petitioner as stated by him was enrolled in the Assam Rifles as a Rifleman (GD) on 15.03.1980 and he was eventually promoted to the rank of Hav(GD) w.e.f. 01.12.2000. As per Record Office Instruction (ROI) No. 4/99, on completion of 30 years qualifying service, the Directorate General Assam Rifles (DGAR) discharged him on retiring pension on 01.04.2010 (FN).

3. In the month of May 2012, the petitioner filed an application before the DGAR for grant of financial up-gradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) on the ground that he had completed 30 years of continuous service and was supposed to get the financial up-gradation under the MACP which was not given to him, as a result of which his grade pay at the time of retirement was Rs.2400/- when it should have been Rs.2800/- if the MACP scheme was made applicable to him.

4. According to the petitioner, the MACP scheme was introduced by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, which became operational w.e.f. 01.09.2008. The scheme provides for financial up-gradation to a Government employee at intervals of 10, 20 and 30 years of service whenever an incumbent has spent continuously for 10 years in the same grade pay.

5. In response to his application dated 11.05.2012, the Commandant, 11 Assam Rifles by the impugned order No. 1.11011/A- 2012/714 dated 26.05.2012 (Annexure-II of the writ petition) has informed the petitioner that his application was not considered although his name figures under the MACP scheme, but the same could not be extended to him due to ACR criteria. Another application, dated 01.10.2013 filed by the petitioner met with the same reply vide letter dated 23.10.2013 by the Record Officer who has informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for grant of MACP due to lack of ACR criteria, which was already informed to him on 12.10.2011.

6. Contending that he was never in receipt of the said communication dated 12.10.2011 and as such, was not aware of the negative ACR and the alleged adverse remarks against him which has affected his promotional prospects, the petitioner moved this Court by way of a writ petition numbered as writ petition No. WP(C) No. 27 of 2014 and this Court after hearing the parties has, vide order dated 04.12.2014 disposed of the same with a direction to the respondent No. 2 therein to communicate the adverse entries in the service book of the petitioner which was used for determining the benchmark of the petitioner for extending the financial benefits under MACPS to the petitioner within a period of one month to enable the petitioner to file representation and the petitioner is also to file the representation within two weeks of being intimated of the said adverse entries and the authorities to dispose of the same within a period of one month.

7. In compliance with this Court's order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 24.01.2015 to which the respondent authority vide order dated 12.09.2015 (supra) rejected the said representation, primarily on the ground that that there is no policy to upgrade the ACR of an individual and as such, the ACR grading of the petitioner for the year 2006 and 2007 cannot be upgraded and hence, he is not eligible for grant of financial up-gradation under the MACP scheme.

8. Mr. B. Pathak,