Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a retired Judicial Officer having been superannuated at the age of 58 years. 3. After he has retired, in the first instance, the State Government in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court in a Writ Petition filed by the All India Judicial Service Association & others for implementing the recommendations of Shetty Commission has issued a Notification extending the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) at regular intervals in respect of those Judicial Officers, who have not within a specified period received any promotion, the higher pay scale is to be given to them. This order was issued on 16.4.2004. According to this Notification, a Munsif, re-designated as Civil Judge (Junior Division) was to be promoted to the pay scale of Rs. 12,850-17,550.00 from existing pay scale of Rs. 10,750-14,900.00 on satisfactory completion of five years with effect from the date of commencement of Notification or any time thereafter on completion of five years service. Likewise, a Civil Judge (Senior Division), who has completed five years on the post, either on or after the date of commencement of the Notification or thereafter, has to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 14,200-18,350.00 on grant of 1st Assured Career Progression and on further completion of five years from the date of grant of 1st Assured Career Progression, he will be entitled to 2nd Assured Career Progression by placement in the pay scale of Rs. 16,750-20,500.00. 4. The State Government vide Notification dated 12.3.2003 issued by the Finance Department revised the pay scales of Judicial Officers whereby revision of pay scales was made effective from 1.1.1996 notionally but the actual benefits were given with effect from 1.7.1996. However, subsequently vide another Notification dated 30.6.2006, the actual benefits of Assured Career Progression were also made to flow with effect from 1.1.1996 in terms of original Notification dated 16.4.2004 by which a Member of the Judicial Service, whether a Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Civil Judge (Senior Division) became entitled to be placed in the higher scale of pay on completion of five yeare terms described as the 1st Assured Career Progression and, on completion of 10 years on the same post, in the next higher scale of pay described as the 2nd Assured Career Progression. 5. 5. The petitioner having been superannuated on 31.5.2002 had not become entitled to any benefit under the original scheme which has been made effective from the date of the Notification. However, the petitioner became entitled to be considered for the benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme on completion of five years of service from his last posting on or after 1.1.1996. He made a representation for considering his case for giving him the benefit of 1st Assured Career Progression on completion of five years with effect from his promotion to the post of Sub-Judge, re-designated as [Civil Judge (Sr. Division)]. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 as Munsif, later on re-designated as [Civil Judge (Jr. Division)], and he was promoted on officiating basis to the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) on 19.4.1989 and he continued to hold the same post until his retirement on 31.5.2002. The petitioners case is that though his case comes within the ambit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, which had been notified on 30.6.2006, and his case ought to have been considered as on 1.1.1996 but it has not been considered. 6. Having not got the relief claimed through his representation, this writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus upon the respondents to grant benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits flowing from such extension of benefit of ACP Scheme. 7. A counter has been filed in which details about the petitioners service records from 1995-96 onwards have been disclosed and it was stated on that basis that since the petitioners service was not satisfactory, the High Court in its Evaluation Commitee meeting dated 10.12.2001 has not found his service satisfactory and, hence, he was not granted the benefit of extension of age from 58 years to 60 years and, in view of that, he is not entitled to the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme. 8. However, it has also been stated in the same counter that in the year 1995-96, his performance was found Good to the extent the petitioner has got good knowledge of law and procedure, prompt in disposal of cases, efficiency and honest officer and, accordingly, he was recommended to vest the power of ACJM/ CJM, Assistant Sessions Judge when his turn comes. 9. 9. It is apparent from the counter that the petitioners case under the Assured Career Progression Scheme was considered only in 2001. When his case was being considered whether he should be given the benefit of extended service up to 60 years or he should be allowed to superannuate on completion of the normal age of superannuation, it was not an exercise for the purpose of considering his case for grant of the benefit of Assured Career Progression under any of the Notifications. Since the petitioner has been found "Not fit" for allowing him the benefit of extension of service on completion of normal age of superannuation, it was also assumed that the petitioner was not fit for grant of the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, which was first notified on 16.4.2004. Suffice it to say that as on the date of the first Notification, the petitioner had retired in 2002 and since the actual benefits under 1st Notification were to flow from 2003, the petitioner was otherwise not entitled to any benefit under the scheme of 2003 which could have affected his last drawn pay if so as to require revisioin of even pensionary benefit. It has no bearing on his claim for being considered for grant of the benefit of Assured Career Progression. 10. But under the modified scheme of Assured Career Progression, as recommended by the Shetty Commission, which has been made effective from 1.1.1996. In other words, when all Officers, who were in service as on 1.1.1996 in the respective cadre posts, were entitled to be considered for Assured Career Progression benefits on holding the post continuously for five years or more with effect from the date of first holding the post on 1.1.1996 or thereafter, as and when, he completed five years of service. Therefore, it is on the date an incumbent completes five years of service on the post was required to be considered whether he is entitled for the benefit of Assured Career Progression on that date or not. The important aspect of the Assured Career Progression is to be noticed is that the ACP Scheme is related to the date of completion of five years and any benefit under the said ACP Scheme is not liable to be deferred merely because consideration for the purpose may have taken place at a later date. The important aspect of the Assured Career Progression is to be noticed is that the ACP Scheme is related to the date of completion of five years and any benefit under the said ACP Scheme is not liable to be deferred merely because consideration for the purpose may have taken place at a later date. For example, if a person completes five years of service on 7.07.1996, he becomes eligible for grant of benefit from 7.07.1996 and it cannot be deferred to a later date. Likewise, a person who has completed five years of service on the post prior to 1.1.1996, he becomes eligible for grant of Assured Career Progression benefit with effect from 1.1.1996, the date when the policy became effective with flow of all consequential benefits thereto. The service records pertaining to the period subsequent to the date on which a person becomes eligible to the benefit of Assured Career Progression are not relevant for consideration of the ACP Scheme. This exercise obviously has not been undertaken by the Evaluation Committee, at least, in the case of the petitioner. 11. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner was promoted on officiating basis on 19.4.1999 and since then he had not received any further promotion and he had completed five years of service as Sub-Judge or Civil Judge (Sr. Division) on 19.4.1994. Thus when the scheme of Assured Career Progression became effective on 1.1.1996, he became eligible to be considered for Assured Career Progression on 1.1.1996. For the purpose whether he is entitled to Assured Career Progression on 1.1.1996, his service records pertaining to the period prior to 1.1.1996 have to be evaluated, and if the service record is satisfactory during that period, i.e. five years preceding 1.1.1996, he is entitled to get the benefit of Assured Career Progression. Since the Evaluation Committee has not taken this exercise, it is now required that it should take this exercise now and make its recommendations for follow up action. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression on the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in the light of the observations made above. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months. 13. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression on the post of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in the light of the observations made above. This exercise may be completed within a period of two months. 13. If the petitioner is ultimately found eligible for grant of any benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, either 1st or 2nd or both, he shall further be entitled to all consequential post retirement benefits to be re-fixed on the basis of his last emoluments which would be drawn at the time of his retirement, as a result of grant of ACP or ACPs, as the case may be until the date of his retirement. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.