Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
P.V. Rajgopal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 21 April, 1998
6. The Petitioners argued that a similar issue had been considered by
the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in New Delhi, which had allowed a
similar Original Application and set aside an order (Annex.A1) that also
denied a revision of pay scales to those promoted between 1 January 2006,
and 31 August 2008. Although the Tribunal noted this argument in
paragraph 28, without providing a reason, it simply stated that the facts
and law of the said case had no relation to the present one. The Petitioners
contended that Annex.A2 was implemented correctly and that the
Annex.A1 order, issued nine years later, was therefore illegal. The Tribunal
should have examined the merits of the case and determined how the
mistake occurred and why the refixation of pay and grade pay was
considered wrong. Instead, the Tribunal simply concluded, without
Sproviding any reasoning, that a mistake had been made in the applicants'
pay fixation in the ₹7,450-11,500 scale. Upon evaluating Ext.P3 as a
whole, it is evident that the Tribunal failed to provide any justification for
its agreement with the department's position. It also did not explain why
the order from the Principal Bench of the Tribunal (Ext.P7) in the case of
K.P. Rajagopal and another vs. Union of India and others, dated 1 June
2016, was inapplicable. Therefore, there is no other recourse but to set
aside Exts.P3 and P6 and remand the matter for reconsideration.
1