JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2022 The petitioner got enrolled in Assam Riffles on 8/5/1983 got remustered as Havildhar / Cipher on 14/7/1987 and availed voluntary discharge on 1/7/2004. While the petitioner was continuing as Havildhar / Cipher, the Government of India introduced the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP), for granting to financial up-gradation, to persons stagnating in a grade at intervals of 12 and 24 years of service. According to the petitioner, as a part of Havildhar / Cipher on remusteration is not a promotion, he was entitled to get the first financial up- gradation under the ACP scheme. The ACP scheme was late replaced with the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP Scheme) from 1/9/2008 onwards. Under the MACP Scheme, an incumbent stagnating in a post is entitled to get three financial up-gradations at the intervals of 10,20 and 30 years. The petitioner's grievance is that he is not given he benefit under the ACP and MACP Schemes, on the premise that remusteration as Havildhar / Cipher amounts to promotion.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Honourable Supreme Court considered the issue in W.P(C) No.32624 of 2008 (Union of India Vs. Sentimon Mathew) and has declared that, remusteration as Cipher should be treated as direct recruitment and the incumbent entitled for the financial up-gradations on completion of 12 and 24 years service from the date of entry of Havildhar / Cipher under the ACP Scheme, and on completion of 10,20 and 30 years under the MACP Scheme. Placing reliance on the judgment and seeking similar consideration, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent.

3.Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

4.Since the petitioner’s representation made is pending consideration, may not be proper for this Court to enter into the merits of the case. Suffice it to say, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the representation in the light of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation and to pass a reasoned order thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order as directed above shall be passed within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that while passing orders on the representation, the 2nd respondent should consider the binding precedents, if any, pointed out by the petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G ARUN JUDGE

SJ

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1748/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.234I80410841 DATED 07/2004 OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/06/2019 IN WP(C) NO.7535 OF 2019 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/01/2020 IN WP(C) 26373 OF 2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

13/10/2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.