- (1.)The petitioner claims directions to the respondents to grant him Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme benefit in accordance with the prevailing instructions, especially, Circular No.16/2000 dated 18.03.2000. It is contended that the petitioner, who joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on 26.03.1987 as Sub-Inspector, successfully completed 12 years regular service in the same grade without any promotion. He was deputed to the CBI and was, therefore, drawing pay in the higher grade. Upon his repatriation from the CBI on 30.11.2004, he became aware that he had been overlooked for the ACP benefits. The petitioner relies upon several representations made to the respondents demanding release of the ACP benefit from the time he became entitled to them. The respondents, however, did not grant the relief. He has, therefore, approached the Court.
(2.)It is contended by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner's entitlement or otherwise to the financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme are not available. It is also contended that the petitioner's inaction in approaching the Court makes it impossible for the respondents to verify whether, in fact, he was deployed to undergo Promotional Cadre Course (PCC) and if so whether he went or declined to do so. Counsel highlighted the fact that in case the petitioner declined to attend the course, there was no question of his being entitled to the benefit of ACP scheme. It is also stated that the petitioner's representation was disposed of on 22.02.2008 and that this Court should, in the circumstances, decline the relief.
(3.)So far as the respondents' submission is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that having regard to the pleadings, the same is unfounded. The petitioner relies upon the nominal roll, apparently drawn sometime in 2005 indicating that he was not detailed for PCC.