JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 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 The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier 2nd ACP which was given to this petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that an employee must meet standards/requirements for promotion, such as; passing of the departmental examinations, higher educational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authorities came with an office order being No. 27 dated 06.09.2016 and by virtue of that the 2nd ACP which was withdrawn earlier pursuant to the order dated 11.12.2013, was modified and withdrawn and the petitioner was declared to be entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16.04.2001 itself. The said office order dated 06.09.2016 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. 16.04.2001, 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. 4. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that by virtue of order dated 06.09.2016, the petitioner became entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16.04.2001; as such, the petitioner may be directed to give representation before the respondent authority to consider his case. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits it clearly transpires that though the 2nd ACP which was granted to the petitioner earlier was withdrawn by order dated 11.12.2013. However, the said order was further modified vide office Order No. 27 dated 06.09.2016 to the effect that the order dated 11.12.2013 was withdrawn and the petitioner became entitled for 2nd ACP w.e.f. 16.04.2001. As such, since the petitioner is not facing any criminal or departmental proceeding; he is certainly entitled for MACP after completion of 30 years w.e.f. 16.04.2007 in accordance with the Rules. 6. As such, since the petitioner is not facing any criminal or departmental proceeding; he is certainly entitled for MACP after completion of 30 years w.e.f. 16.04.2007 in accordance with the Rules. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the instant writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent No. 3 along with all necessary documents and copy of this order. The respondent No. 3 is directed to verify the documents and extend the benefit of MACP from the date he has completed 30 years of service. 7. It is made clear that since the matter is very old, the respondent No. 3 shall take a final decision within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such representation and all consequential benefits accrued thereon shall be made available to the petitioner within a further period of 6 weeks. 8. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of.