Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)Shakeel Ahmad Burney vs Union Of India Rep. By on 21 December, 2012
In this OA, the applicant claims similar benefit as
per the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra) and
Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra). There is nothing on record produced by the
respondents to show that the Tribunal's orders in above mentioned cases are
patently illegal or these orders have been set aside or modified in higher forum.
Hence, the applicant's claim cannot be stated to be claiming parity against a
wrong or illegal order and the judgment cited by the respondents will not be
helpful for the respondents' case.
Mohan Lal Raigar vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 May, 2012
In this OA, the applicant claims similar benefit as
per the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bhanwar Lal Regar (supra) and
Shakeel Ahmad Burney (supra). There is nothing on record produced by the
respondents to show that the Tribunal's orders in above mentioned cases are
patently illegal or these orders have been set aside or modified in higher forum.
Hence, the applicant's claim cannot be stated to be claiming parity against a
wrong or illegal order and the judgment cited by the respondents will not be
helpful for the respondents' case.
Hari Ram & Anr vs Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 20 December, 2017
11. The applicant's counsel had earlier relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Hari Ram vs. Registrar General, Delhi High
Court. In that case, the petitioner was aggrieved because he was not allowed
the benefit of 3rd MACP since the respondents treated his fixation of pay with
the GP of Rs. 5400/- as one upgradation where as for similarly situated
employees, it was treated differently. Hence, the cited case is factually
distinguishable from the present OA, for which the cited judgment would not
be helpful for the applicant's case.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India vs S. Ranjit Samuel on 2 July, 2018
In the case of S. Ranjit Samuel (supra), a batch of Writ Petitions with
similar issues, the employees involved in those writ petitions were aggrieved as
they were not allowed the benefit of 2nd upgradation under the Assured Career
Progression ( in short ACP) Scheme after completion of 24 years of service
between January to April, 2009. When their claim for the ACP Scheme was
pending, the Modified ACP (in short MACP) Scheme was introduced replacing
the ACP Scheme with retrospective effect i.e. from 1.9.2008. The applicants
claimed that since on the date of completion of their 24 years of service, the
ACP Scheme was in force, they should be allowed 2nd upgradation under the
ACP scheme instead of the MACP Scheme in which the benefit would be less.
In the present OA before us, the dispute relates to withdrawal of the BCR
benefit granted w.e.f. 1.7.2009 and sanction of the MACP benefits in addition
to the benefits allowed under the BCR Scheme, which was withdrawn from
1.9.2008 with introduction of the MACP Scheme vide the circular dated
18.9.2009 (Annexure-R/1 to the Counter). In the OA, the decision to withdraw
the BCR Scheme w.e.f. 1.9.2008 has not been challenged. In case of the ACP
Scheme, it stood modified w.e.f. 1.9.2008 after introduction of the MACP
Scheme.
1