Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Vinod Kumar Sharma And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2021

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Asha Menon

$~Suppl.-23
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P. (C) 2452/2021& CM APPLs. 7158-59/2021
      VINOD KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS           .....Petitioners
                  Through: M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
                          Versus
      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                   .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan, Senior
                             Panel Counsel with Mr. Himanshu
                             Pathak, Advocate (GP).

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

                      ORDER

% 23.02.2021 The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29th October, 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') and orders dated 05th December, 2019 and 20th March, 2020 passed by the respondents.

Petitioners also seek direction to the respondents to accord Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme [MFCS] benefits to the petitioners in the grade pay of Rs. 8700/- from the date of completion of Minimum Residency Period [MRP] of four years along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are Principal Technical Officers (PTO) in the centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) who became due for promotion to the post of Joint Director (JD). However, he states that the Interview Board did not recommend their names and hence they were not promoted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the policy incorporated in the OM dated 31st July, 2017, the interview board is required to give due weightage to AWR ratings. However, he submits that this has not been done in the case of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the CAT Principal Bench, Delhi erred in not following the judgment of the Coordinate Ernakulam Bench dated 14th December, 2018 which considered the same grievance raised by similarly placed persons.

Issue notice.

Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Baliyan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. He prays for and is permitted to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

List the matter on 20th May, 2021.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J ASHA MENON, J FEBRUARY 23, 2021 TS