Judgment : LNR, J. 1. The respondents in O.A.No.728 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’), filed this Writ Petition, assailing the order, dated 21.02.2012, passed therein. 2. The respondents herein filed the O.A. claiming benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’), which is commonly known as “Financial Upgradation”. The Scheme was introduced through Office Memorandum, dated 09.08.1999, by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, based upon the 5th Central Pay Commission’s report. The Scheme provides that if an employee of the Central Government does not get promotion from the initial appointment, which is by way of direct recruitment, for a period of 12 years, he shall be entitled for the 1st Assured Career Progression (ACP), resulting in payment of the scale of pay for the next higher post. Similarly, if there is stagnation for a further period of 12 years, the employee shall be entitled for the 2nd ACP. 3. The respondents were initially appointed in Group-D of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) in the year 1982. Thereafter, they were appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs), on the basis of their performance in a competitive examination held for that purpose. They were not promoted to the next higher post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), till the year 2000. Therefore, on completion of 12 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs, they have been extended the benefit of the 1st ACP. They laid claim for the 2nd ACP, stating that they have completed 24 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs. 4. The petitioners took the view that once the respondents have got the benefit of promotion in the year 2002, they are not entitled for the 2nd ACP, unless they have completed 24 years of service from the date of appointment as LDCs. Another view expressed by the petitioners was that the appointment of the respondents as LDCs in the year 1988 is by way of promotion, and since the benefit of one progression and one promotion has been extended to them, they are not entitled for further benefit. Feeling aggrieved by the communication received in this regard, the respondents filed the O.A. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the communication received in this regard, the respondents filed the O.A. 5. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. through order, dated 21.02.2012, taking the view that the respondents would become eligible for the 2nd ACP, only on completion of 24 years of service from the respective dates of their regular appointment as LDCs. The petitioners challenge the same. 6. Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Scheme provides for extension of the benefit of ACP, maximum for two times, on completion of service of 12 years and 24 years from the date of initial appointment by way of direct recruitment, and that once the respondents have been extended the benefit of one progression and they earned promotion, thereafter, they are not entitled to be extended the benefit of the 2nd ACP. He submits that the view taken by the Tribunal that the respondents are entitled to be extended the benefit of the 2nd ACP, on completion of 24 years of service, cannot be sustained in law. 7. Sri T. P. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the Scheme as well as the clarification given by the DOPT would indicate that the respondents are entitled for the 2nd ACP also. He submits that earning of promotion by the respondents, after the 1st ACP was extended, does not disentitle them from receiving the benefit of the 2nd ACP, unless a further promotion was effected for them from the post of UDC. 8. As observed earlier, the Scheme was introduced in the year 1999, taking into account the report of the 5th Central Pay Commission. It is an anti-stagnation measure. If an employee is not promoted to a higher post for a period of 12 years, the benefit of pay scale for the higher post is extended, though the employee would continue in the lower category of post itself. 9. It is important to take note of Para 5.1 of Annexure-I to the Scheme. It reads: “Two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast-track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. It reads: “Two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion and fast-track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him.” 10. The purport of the Scheme is explained, with illustrations. The starting point for reckoning the period of 12 years or 24 years of service, as the case may be, is the date, on which an employee has been appointed as a direct recruit. There is some uncertainty about this aspect, in the case of the respondents. They have been initially appointed as Messengers in the GSI in the year 1982. Thereafter, they came to be appointed as LDCs in the year 1988, but on different dates. The petitioners have taken the view that the movement of the respondents from the post of Messenger to LDC must be treated as promotion, and thereby, they would be disentitled for the 1st ACP itself. This, however, is not correct. 11. The post of LDC is not prescribed as a promotional avenue for the post of Messenger. However, a limited facility of appearing in a competitive examination to fill a specified percentage of posts of LDCs is created for the Messengers. It is only on the basis of the performance in the competitive examination, that the Messengers, to the extent of available vacancies of LDCs under the relevant category, would be appointed to that post. A person can be said to have been promoted to a superior post, only when he moves to that, purely on the basis of the length of service, he has rendered in the post of the lower category. A person can be said to have been promoted to a superior post, only when he moves to that, purely on the basis of the length of service, he has rendered in the post of the lower category. If he is subjected to selection process or any competitive examination is held for the purpose of giving promotion, at the best, it would be the appointment through transfer; if there is any objection to employ the expression ‘direct recruitment’. Viewed in this angle, the starting point for reckoning the period of 12 years or 24 years of service, as the case may be, for the purpose of the ACP, would be from the respective dates on which the respondents have been appointed as LDCs. 12. It is a matter of record that the respondents were not promoted to the post of UDC for a period of 12 years from the date on which they have been appointed as LDCs. Taking that into account, the petitioners themselves extended the benefit of the 1st ACP to the respondents in the year 2000. 13. The occasion to extend the benefit of two ACPs, one at the end of 12 years and the other at the end of 24 years, would arise, if only, in the span of 24 years, the employee did not earn two substantive promotions. Axiomatically, if an employee earns one promotion within a span, he would be entitled to one ACP, and if he has earned two promotions, he would not be entitled for any ACP at all. It is already mentioned that the respondents have earned one promotion in the year 2002 to the post of UDC, and earlier to that, they have been extended the benefit of the ACP in the year 2000, on completion of 12 years of service from the date of appointment to the post of LDC. 14. Therefore, the question of their being extended the benefit of the 2nd ACP does not arise. To that extent, the view taken in the order passed by the Tribunal, cannot be countenanced. 15. If the respondents are entitled for any additional benefit under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced with effect from 01.09.2008, separate exercise needs to be undertaken in that behalf. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. 15. If the respondents are entitled for any additional benefit under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme introduced with effect from 01.09.2008, separate exercise needs to be undertaken in that behalf. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand disposed of.