The petitioner, who demitted his office while working in the Central Reserve Police Force after rendering 30 years of service on 01.04.2014, has alleged in the writ petition that he was not granted the financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, “MACP”), which was introduced in the year 2009. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits, he approached this Court with WP(C) No.10308/2012, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was granted leave encashment and Group Insurance Amount on 18.06.2012. Later, orders were passed, wherein it was stated that the petitioner would not be entitled for any interest though they admitted entitlement for benefits under MACP. The petitioner further alleges that he has not been granted the benefits under MACP till the date of filing W.P.(C) No. 18634 of 2012 ..2..
of this writ petition. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the MACP and other retirement benefits were released to the petitioner and his only subsisting grievance is regarding the belated payment of the retirement benefits.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, inviting my attention to para 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, submitted that the delay was not on account of any willful laches on the part of the respondents. According to them, the petitioner has been paid all his basic pensionary benefits; and the alleged delay in grant of pensionary benefits arose on account of insistence of the petitioner for grant of 3rd MACP before processing the pension papers. They maintain the stand that the Department has acted to the preference opted by the petitioner and all what was done was for the benefit of the petitioner by considering his claim.
4. As the subsisting grievance of the petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 18634 of 2012 ..3..
only with regard to the belated payment, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the highest authorities with a separate representation.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to ventilate his grievance through a proper representation before the 3rd respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In the event of filing such a representation, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of three months.
To facilitate an early action, it is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with the representation.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE