(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 The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier 2nd ACP which was given to this petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that an employee must meet standards/requirements for promotion, such as; passing of the departmental examinations, higher educational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respondent authorities came with an office order being No. 27 dtd. 6/9/2016 and by virtue of that the 2nd ACP which was withdrawn earlier pursuant to the order dtd. 11/12/2013, was modified and withdrawn and the petitioner was declared to be entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16/4/2001 itself. The said office order dtd. 6/9/2016 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 16/4/2001, the natural consequences will be entitlement of MACP after completion of 30 years. He further submits that no criminal or departmental proceeding is pending against this petitioner, as such; the respondent should not have any objection in granting the MACP in accordance with the Rules. As such, the respondents may be directed to give all consequential benefits considering his entitlement of MACP after completion of 30 years in accordance with the Rules.