JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in pursuant to the rejection orders issued by the 2nd respondent for period from 01.04.1991 to 16.07.1991 vide letter C.No.110445 G.B. IX(2)/2014 dated 14.08.2014, for period from 30.08.1991 to 31.03.1992 vide letter C.No.122926/G.B.IX (2)/2014 dated 14.08.2014, for period from 20.04.1992 to 18.02.1993 vide letter C.No.122922/G.B.IX (2)/2014 dated 14.08.2014, for period from 01.04.1993 to 14.10.1993 vide letter C.No.122923/G.B.IX (2)/2014 dated 14.08.2014 and for period from 01.04.1995 to 08.11.1995 vide letter C.No.122924/G.B.IX (2)/2014 dated 14.08.2014 and quash all of them with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to give an overall rating of 'outstanding' or 'very good' to the petitioner in the Annual Confidential reports for the above mentioned periods and further direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.06.2014 forwarded to him by the 2nd respondent in the light of G.O.Ms.No.11 Personnel and Administration Reforms (Per-R) dated 05.01.1984.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner to upgrade his grading in the Annual Confidential Report from the period 01.04.1991 to 16.07.1991 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was serving as Commandant in the Tamil Nadu Special Police. He was an I.P.S. Rank official and promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police with effect from 1996-1997. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that during the period from 01.04.1991 to 16.07.1991, the grading given by the Superior Authorities were not satisfactory and thus, he has filed an application for upgradation of grading in the Annual Confidential Report for the said period. It was rejected by the Director General of Police and on 14.08.2014, on the ground that the revision for grading is to be made within a reasonable period. However, the request of the writ petitioner relating to the year 1991 cannot be done after a lapse of 23 years. Furthermore, the authorities found that the grading entered during the relevant point of time in the year 1991 cannot be revised after a lapse of more than 20 years. 4. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 55 years and now he would be around 63 years. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation. 4. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 55 years and now he would be around 63 years. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation. Recording ACR by the Superior Official cannot be revised after a lapse of more than 20 years. If at all any grievance existed during the relevant point of time regarding wrong assessment by the superior officials, then the aggrieved employee has to approach the competent authorities within a reasonable period of time. The adverse remarks in the service record are always informed to the employees concerned, on receipt of any such adverse remarks or otherwise. The employees concerned are expected to prefer an appeal, if he had chosen to do so without any loss of time. 5. In the present case the grievance of the petitioner is that the overall grading given by the competent authorities was not satisfactory. Such a grievances cannot be considered as a cause for the purpose of granting relief and furthermore, the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation and thus, no further consideration is required as far as the merits involved in the case. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.