Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.46 seconds)Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020
7.8 It is submitted that in case of UOI Vs. M V Mohanan Nair the
Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the benefits under MACP Scheme is to
be granted in the standard hierarchy of grade pay / pay level and not
on promotion hierarchy. In fact, the applicants have prayed for
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.206/2021) 12
granting of benefits under MACP Scheme in the hierarchy of grade
pay and not in promotion hierarchy. According to learned counsel for
the applicant, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs Rajpal Singh on 7 November, 2008
It is also argued by the counsel for the applicants
that the SLP filed against the judgment passed by the
Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its
judgment dated 19.10.2011 in CWP No.19387 of 2011 i.e.,
case of Union of India versus Rajpal was also dismissed
in limine, and therefore, the decision of Chennai Bench of
this Tribunal dated 22.07.2013 in OA No.280/2012
allowing the benefits of 3rd MACP up-gradation in PB -3,
GP Rs.6600/- in S. Balakrishnan Case becomes final and
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.206/2021) 30
attend finality, therefore it is completely binding upon the
present respondents. Thus, the applicants herein who are
identically and similarly placed as like S.Balakrishnan,
they are also entitled for 3rd MACP in PB-3, GP Rs.6600/-.
All India Association Of Central Excise ... vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2012
8.9 It is also stated that after considering various directions issued by
different Bench of this Tribunal as also Hon‟ble High Courts,
including the order passed by CAT Principal Bench in OA
2806/2016 dated 26.02.2020 in the case of All India Association of
Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officer, Delhi & Ors v/s Union of
India & Ors, as also the order passed in the case of Hari Ram & Anr
v/s Registrar General, Delhi High Court etc, the CBEC sought
further clarifications/opinions from the competent authority i.e.
DoP&T. In response to it, DoP&T vide its instructions/clarification
dated 12.01.2021 reiterated earlier position that NFU granted in GP
5400/- in PB-2 needs to be offset against one Financial Up gradation
as per MACP policy. Further, the DoP&T clarified that the
judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme,
requires to be challenged in higher court. It is further contended that
on receipt of DoP&Ts clarification dated 12.01.2021, the respondents
have filed necessary review applications and writ petition in
respective OAs/Writ Petitions before the appropriate Tribunal and
High Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the orders and judgments relied upon by the applicants are not
helpful to them since same are inconsistent with the MACP policy.
The respondents have filed review, writ petition and said petitions
are now sub judice before various courts.
Hari Ram & Anr vs Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 20 December, 2017
8.9 It is also stated that after considering various directions issued by
different Bench of this Tribunal as also Hon‟ble High Courts,
including the order passed by CAT Principal Bench in OA
2806/2016 dated 26.02.2020 in the case of All India Association of
Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officer, Delhi & Ors v/s Union of
India & Ors, as also the order passed in the case of Hari Ram & Anr
v/s Registrar General, Delhi High Court etc, the CBEC sought
further clarifications/opinions from the competent authority i.e.
DoP&T. In response to it, DoP&T vide its instructions/clarification
dated 12.01.2021 reiterated earlier position that NFU granted in GP
5400/- in PB-2 needs to be offset against one Financial Up gradation
as per MACP policy. Further, the DoP&T clarified that the
judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme,
requires to be challenged in higher court. It is further contended that
on receipt of DoP&Ts clarification dated 12.01.2021, the respondents
have filed necessary review applications and writ petition in
respective OAs/Writ Petitions before the appropriate Tribunal and
High Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the orders and judgments relied upon by the applicants are not
helpful to them since same are inconsistent with the MACP policy.
The respondents have filed review, writ petition and said petitions
are now sub judice before various courts.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
Observing that when a Special Leave Petition is
dismissed by a non- speaking order, by such dismissal,
the Supreme Court does not lay down any law as
envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution of India
in Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v.
Union of India and Others (1989) 4 SCC 187, this Court
held as under:-
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 August, 1986
In Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1986) 4
SCC 146 it has been held by this Court that the
dismissal of a special leave petition in limine
by a non- speaking order does not justify any
inference that, by necessary implication, the
contentions raised in the special leave petition
on the merits of the case have been rejected by
the Supreme Court. It has been further held
that the effect of a non-speaking order of
dismissal of a special leave petition without
anything more indicating the grounds or
reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary
implication, be taken to be that the Supreme
Court had decided only that it was not a fit
case where special leave petition should be
granted.
Union Of India vs All India Services Pensioners ... on 14 January, 1988
In Union of India v. All India
Services Pensioners Association (1988) 2 SCC
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH OA NO.206/2021) 31
580 this Court has given reasons for
dismissing the special leave petition. When
such reasons are given, the decision becomes
one which attracts Article 141 of the
Constitution which provides that the law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all the courts within the territory
of India. It, therefore, follows that when no
reason is given, but a special leave petition is
dismissed simplicitor, it cannot be said that
there has been a declaration of law by this
Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.