WP(C) 6464/2005 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petition er as well as Mr. N. Baruah, learned CGC. The petitioner claims the benefit of ACP as formulated and laid down by Annexure-A Office Memorandum dated 9.8.99. As per the said scheme, an incumbent is entitled to two financial upgradation on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service, which however, subject to the condition that the incumbent has not e arned any regular promotion during the said period. In the instant case, the pet itioner has earned his promotion to the rank of Charge Mechanic and thus as subm itted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he may not be entitled to furth er financial upgradation but the case of the petitioner is that he having comple ted 24 years of served, he is entitled for 2nd ACP. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th at since the petitioner lacks the technical qualification laid down in the revis ed Recruitment and Promotion Rules, he is not eligible for promotion or upgradat ion to Superintendent EM Grade-II. According to the respondents, the petitioner is a Charge Mechanic with ITI certificate is not eligible for promotion to the a foresaid grade. As regards the two examples cited by the petitioner, who accordi ng to him are similarly situated. The respondents in their counter affidavit, ha ve stated that the said two incumbents were considered for promotion by the DPC erroneously and they have since been reverted from Superintendent EM Grade-II Ch arge Mechanic vide order dated 14.9.2005. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated t hat although the ACP scheme is subject to fulfilling of normal promotional norms , the norms pre-judicial to the Grade-C employees, are required to be ignored. A nother stand taken by the petitioner is that at the time of entering the service s by him, the promotion Rules of 1977 was operative and thus the subsequent rule s of 1992 and 1996 cannot be applied in his case, so as to deny the benefit of A CP. The ACP scheme laid down in the aforesaid memorandum dated 9.8.99 speaks of obtaining interpretation / clarification in respect of any doubt regarding t he provisions of the ACP Scheme. Such interpretation /clarification is to be obt ained from the DoPT (Establishment-D). However, it is the Departmental Screening Committee which is to process the cases for grant of benefits under the ACP sch eme. The composition of the Screening Committee shall be the same as that of the DPC prescribed under the relevant Recruitment/Service Rules for regular promoti on to the higher grade to which financial upgradation is to be granted. Having regard to the controversy involved and as agreed to by the leaned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the c ase of the petitioner may be examined by the Screening Committee, as to whether he is eligible and / or suitable for financial upgradation as has been claimed b y him under the Scheme. Let the exercise be carried out by the prescribed Screen ing Committee of the Department as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 (three) months.