Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)

Raj Pal Sharma And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 10 May, 1985

"51, The ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy. Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer. The recommendations of the Pay Commission for MACP Scheme has been accepted by the Government and implemented. There is nothing to show that the Scheme is arbitrary or unjust warranting interference. Without considering the advantages in the MACP Scheme, the High Courts erred in interfering with the government's policy in accepting the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by simply placing reliance upon Raj Pal's case. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 35 - R B Misra - Full Document

K.G. Krishna Murthy (Died) Per Lrs. And ... vs The Joint Collector And Ors. on 22 October, 2007

In continuation of Department of Personnel Training's earlier O.M. of even no. dated 20.01.2016 and dated 01.03.2016 on the above mentioned subject, the undersigned is durected to forward a copy of the decision dated 28.04.2016 of Hon'ble CAT, Calcutta Bench in OA No. 351/00195/2014 filed by Shri S.H.K. Murti & Others Vs. UOl &Ors whereby the of the applicant for MACP in promotional hierarchy has Seen dismissed, for necessary action and compliance. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the aforesaid decisian dated 28,04,2016 has held that the MACP benefit would be given in the hierarchy of next higher Grade Pay and not in Grade Pay of promotianal kierarchy which will be payable on actual promotion. :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1