Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.60 seconds)
Ashok Godhandas Israni vs Central Board Of Excise & Custom on 25 January, 2021 cites

Union Of India vs M.V. Mohanan Nair on 5 March, 2020

8.8 The learned counsel further submits that the case of Union of India v/s M. V. Mohanan Nair reported in (2020) 5 SCC 421 does not deal with NFG and same is only deal with grant of parity in GP. Therefore, the said judgment has no applicability to the present OA. 8.9 Concluding his arguments, learned counsel Shri Joy Mathew submitted that in his written submission he has reiterated the aforesaid contentions. Further, it is submitted that in view of what has been argued by him and the contentions in written submission, rejoinder filed by the applicants it is urged that the impugned decision is arbitrary, illegal and same has caused great hardship to the applicants who are already retired from service. Further it is submitted that from the salary of applicant no. 2 & 5, the respondent has recovered the amount paid towards 3 rd MACP. However, the applicant no. 1, i.e. Mr. Mansukhbhai Patel, applicant no. 3, i.e., Mr. Dhandhuram Meena, applicant no. 4, i.e., Mr. Niranjan Bhatt has jointly filed separate OA no. 219/2019 for waivar of recovery as also the applicant no. 6, i.e., Mr. K. Valson Chandrashekaran has filed separate OA No. 230/2020 and the said OAs are pending before this Tribunal therefore till date respondent have not initiated recovery against these applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the decision for recovery made by the respondent is also arbitrary and the said recovered amount needs to be refunded to the applicants. It is submitted that any recovery at this stage based on revised PPO will also cause (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/FRESH OA/246/2017) 17 serious financial crunch and hardship to the applicants. Therefore the impugned decision requires be quashed and set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 365 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Rajpal Singh on 7 November, 2008

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. V. Mohannan (supra) in categorical terms held that the decision rendered in Union of India vs. Rajpal case ought not to have been quoted as precedent having been (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/FRESH OA/246/2017) 33 dismissed on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in re-filing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus, "49.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 113 - D K Jain - Full Document

All India Association Of Central Excise ... vs Union Of India on 29 March, 2012

9.11 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. DOPT. In response to it, DOPT 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 Upgradation as per MACP policy. Further, the DOPT clarified that the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to be challenged in higher court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 7 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Hari Ram & Anr vs Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 20 December, 2017

9.11 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. DOPT. In response to it, DOPT 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 Upgradation as per MACP policy. Further, the DOPT clarified that the judgment/orders are not in consistent with the MACP Scheme, requires to be challenged in higher court.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 55 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next