JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned C.G.S.C. for the appellants as well as Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel representing the sole respondent/writ petitioner. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2015 passed in WP(C) 6594/2013 whereby the writ petition was allowed and the appellants have been directed to grant the second financial upgradation to the respondent in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999 which pertains to the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the Central Government civilian employees. 2. The respondent/writ petitioner joined as Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles on 14.05.1981. On 01.11.1999, he got his first promotion to the post of Havildar (General Duty). On 01.02.2007, he proceeded on voluntary retirement after putting in a total of 25 years and 8 months in service. Controversy raised in the writ petition was that he was due for the second financial upgradation in the year 2005 for having completed 24 years of service. In this regard, he had submitted representation but the same was rejected by order dated 10.06.2008. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was instituted. 3. The Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training had issued Office Memorandum dated 09.08.1999 introducing the Assured Career Progression Scheme (in short, ‘the ACP Scheme’) to deal with the problem of general stagnation and hardship faced by the Central Government civilian employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues. The said ACP Scheme has been adopted in the Assam Rifles. The Scheme postulates that two financial upgradations would be available only if no regular promotions during the prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. It further envisages that if an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradaiton only on completion of 24 years of regular service. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been availed by an employee, benefit under the ACP Scheme will not accrue to him. Relevance of seniority position has been dispensed with, making it clear that financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee. Clause 6 of the ACP Scheme puts in a condition to the effect that fulfilment of normal promotional norms shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the Scheme. 4. Relevance of seniority position has been dispensed with, making it clear that financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be purely personal to the employee. Clause 6 of the ACP Scheme puts in a condition to the effect that fulfilment of normal promotional norms shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the Scheme. 4. Turning to the case in hand, the appellants have sought to justify their stand primarily on the ground that the respondent did not pass the promotion cadre training as required from promotion from Havildar (General Duty) to Naib Subedar until he proceeded on voluntary retirement. It is argued that the respondent was not eligible or entitled to the grant of second financial upgradation under the Scheme, despite having fulfilled all other eligibility criteria for promotion and having completed 24 years of continuous service as on 14.05.2005. 5. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the eligibility criteria for promotion from Havildar to Naib Subedar involves, amongst others, that the employee should have passed promotion cadre training. In this respect, it is urged that the respondent proceeded on voluntary retirement without passing the promotion cadre from Havildar (General Duty) to Naib Subedar. Taking it further, Mr. Gupta submits that promotion cadre in Assam Rifles are planned and conducted by the units as per availability of vacancies as well as availability of training infrastructure and instructional staff for conducting promotional cadres. It is stated that candidates are detailed to attend promotion cadre in order of seniority as maintained by respective units. In the case in hand, the respondent was not detailed to attend the promotion cadre since a large number of Havildars, senior to him, were in the queue to attend the said promotion cadre. The question of considering the case of the respondent on out-of-turn basis was not permissible. As the respondent did not have the requisite eligibility criteria and for the fact that he proceeded on voluntary retirement without passing the promotion cadre, as such, he was not entitled to claim grant of second financial upgradation under the Scheme. It is also contended that stagnation is a general phenomena in the Assam Rifles units and this cannot be a ground to allege denial of opportunity of promotion or financial upgradation. 6. Per contra, Mr. It is also contended that stagnation is a general phenomena in the Assam Rifles units and this cannot be a ground to allege denial of opportunity of promotion or financial upgradation. 6. Per contra, Mr. Tamuli has urged that acquisition of the eligibility for passing promotion cadre was not in the hand of the respondent/writ petitioner. It is submitted that the appellants ought to have arranged the training of the personnel serving in the rank of Havildar. If the same had not been done, no fault could be attributed to the respondent. Also, it is not a case that the respondent had the opportunity to face the training and had failed to qualify in the same. Besides, the ACP Scheme clearly stipulates that an employee would be extended the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of regular service, which the respondent completed on 14.05.2005. It is further contended that the stand of the appellants that as per seniority in the rank of Havildar maintained by the units the respondent could not be detailed to attend the promotion cadre, the same holds no water as the ACP Scheme clearly postulates that financial upgradation is purely personal to the employee without any relevance to seniority position. 7. The learned Single Judge answered the writ petition in favour of the respondent and while doing so took notice of the stand of the appellants made in paragraphs 6 and 14 of their counter affidavit. The said two paragraphs generally pertained to the procedure adopted by the Assam Rifles while detailing the members of the unit to attend the promotion cadre, which is on the basis of seniority maintained by the units. The averments in the said two paragraphs also contains that promotion cadres are planned and conducted by the units as per availability of vacancies in the post of Naib Subedar as well as availability of training infrastructure and instructional staff for conduct of promotion cadres. Averments were also made that since the respondent was not detailed to attend the promotion cadre in view of senior Havildars standing in queue and since the Scheme itself requires that completion of 24 years of qualifying service would be subject to passing promotion cadre, as such, the respondent was not eligible for promotion or for grant of the second financial upgradation. The observation and findings given by the learned Single Judge, having regard to the averments made in paragraph 6 and 14 of the counter affidavit, may be reproduced hereunder: “15. The explanation given by the respondents in paragraphs 6 and 14 of the counter affidavit as extracted above only establishes stagnation of the petitioner in the rank of Havildar and it is precisely to act as a ‘Safety Net’ and to provide some relief to personnel suffering from service stagnation and consequent hardship because of lack of promotional avenues that financial benefits are extended to such personnel under the ACP Scheme. The grounds furnished by the respondents are infact good and sufficient grounds to extend the second financial upgradation to the petitioner under the ACP Scheme. As has been mentioned in the conditions for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme, financial upgradation under such scheme is purely personal to the concerned employee and has no relevance to his seniority position. 16. Even if the explanation furnished by the respondents is accepted, it might have resulted in a situation whereby till the superannuation of the petitioner in the normal course the training course would not have been held or his turn as per seniority would not have come to enable him to acquire the eligibility. In such a case, would the petitioner be denied the benefit of the second financial upgradation on his superannuation on the ground that he failed to qualify in the promotional cadre training. I am afraid, the answer to this question is self evident and it is precisely to meet such exigencies that the ACP Scheme was introduced to provide for financial upgradation to personnel suffering from service stagnation.” 8. On the above premises, the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 10.06.2008 with direction to the appellants herein to confer the second financial upgradation to the respondent for having completed 24 years of service as on 14.05.2005. Compliance of the direction was limited to 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. In our view, the respondent’s entitlement to the second financial upgradation has to be tested on the scope and ambit of the ACP Scheme alone. Compliance of the direction was limited to 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. In our view, the respondent’s entitlement to the second financial upgradation has to be tested on the scope and ambit of the ACP Scheme alone. At the outset, we place on record that we are not impressed with the stand on eligibility taken by the appellants as regards non-detailing the respondent to attend the promotion cadre on account of senior Havildars being in the queue and/or promotion cadres being planned and conducted by the units as per availability of vacancies in the promotional posts. The ACP Scheme does not give credence to such reasons, in as much as, financial upgradation under the Scheme is purely personal to an employee without having any relevance to his seniority position. The opening lines in Clause 1 of the Scheme sets the tone. The Scheme envisages merely placement in the higher pay-scale/grant of financial benefits through financial upgradation to Government Servants concerned on personal basis. This being the position, ordinarily, an employee after completing 12 and 24 years of regular service, as the case may be, would qualify for financial upgradations under the Scheme. Having said that, Clause 6 of the Scheme cannot be lost sight of. The rider placed therein assumes significance and goes to the root of the case in hand. It would be useful to reproduce Clause 6 of the ACP Scheme, which reads as under: “6. Fulfillment of normal promotion norms (bench-mark, departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group-‘D’ employees, etc.) for grant of financial upgradations, performance of such duties as are entrusted to the employees together with retention of old designations, financial upgradations as personal to the incumbent for the stated purposes and restriction of ACP Scheme for financial and certain other benefits (House Building Advance, allotment of Government accommodation, advances, etc.) only without conferring any privileges related to higher status (e.g. invitation to ceremonial functions, deputation to higher posts, etc) shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme.” 10. It is abundantly clear from Clause 6 above that financial upgradation cannot, ipso facto, be applied merely on completion 12 and 24 years of regular service, as the case may be. A candidate has to fulfill the eligibility of achieving either the benchmark or fitness as per the promotion norms. It is abundantly clear from Clause 6 above that financial upgradation cannot, ipso facto, be applied merely on completion 12 and 24 years of regular service, as the case may be. A candidate has to fulfill the eligibility of achieving either the benchmark or fitness as per the promotion norms. In the instant case, the issue which we are called upon to decide is whether mere completion of 24 years of service automatically entitled the respondent to the second financial upgradation in the year 2005. In this respect, reference is had to the Promotion Policy governing the Assam Rifles personnel, as contained in the Assam Rifles Record Office Instruction No.04/2002. Appendix ‘B’ to the Record Office Instruction provides for the basic eligibility criteria for promotion from Havildar to Naib Subedar. The eligibility criteria envisages (i) ACE-II (Army Certificate of Education (II), (ii) MR-I (Map Reading Standard-I), (iii) TT-I (Technical Trade Test Class (I), (iv) Promotion Cadre ‘S’ Pass. There is no dispute to the fact that although the respondent fulfilled the criteria at (i), (ii) and (iii) above, he did not pass the promotion cadre. In fact, well before attending the said promotion cadre, the respondent proceeded on voluntary retirement on 01.02.2007. In view of the clear prescription under Clause 6 of the ACP Scheme read with the Promotion Policy of the Assam Rifles personnel, the respondent cannot claim automatic entitlement to the second financial upgradation merely having completed 24 years of regular service. 11. The counsel representing the appellants have placed for consideration the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2001 of the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training. The same relates to clarification of doubts persisting in various organizations with regard to applicability/implementation of the ACP Scheme. At Point No.16 thereof, a clarification is made with regard to Clause No.6 to the effect that all promotion norms have to be fulfilled for upgradation under the Scheme. 12. Having regard to the above, more particularly to the rider given in Clause 6, we are of the considered view that the respondent not having fulfilled the promotion norm cannot legally claim entitlement to grant of the second financial upgradation. 12. Having regard to the above, more particularly to the rider given in Clause 6, we are of the considered view that the respondent not having fulfilled the promotion norm cannot legally claim entitlement to grant of the second financial upgradation. This being the position, we respectfully disagree with the findings and decision of the learned Single Judge to the extent where the appellants have been directed to confer the second financial upgradation to the respondent on having completed 24 years of service as on 14.05.2005. We, however, agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge to the extent that financial upgradation under the Scheme does not have any relevance to seniority position and is purely personal to an employee. In this view of the matter, this appeal stands partly allowed to the extent of interfering with the direction made by the learned Single Judge for granting second financial upgradation to the respondent. The parties are left to bear their own costs.