SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1305

SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
N. M. Raut – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D.j.bhanage, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Satya Darshi Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Jain, Adv. Ms. BLN Shivani, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R. Balasubranian, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma-ii, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma- B, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Brahma Prakash Soni, Adv. Mr. Ponnam Mahesh Babu, Adv. Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Subhash Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kirti Anand, Adv. Mr. Rohit Verma, Adv. Mr. Samir Malik, AOR Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. D. J. Bhanage, Adv. Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Nishant Anshul, Adv. Ms. Deveshi Chand, Adv. Mr. Rajat Joseph, AOR Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kari Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Adv. Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar Vats, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mishra, AOR Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sundar, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) Nos. 8015 OF 2022, 10457-10458 of 2022, 11342-11343 of 2022, 10475-10476 of 2022, 10642-10643 of 2022, 12354-12355 of 2022, 15188-15189 of 2022, 10693-10694 of 2022, 10272-10273 of 2022, 11119-11120 of 2022, 11207-11208 of 2022, 2995 of 2023 and 2557 of 2023

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment decides the aforestated appeals, which are concerned with the interpretation and implementation of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, 20081[For short, “MACPS.”], applicable with effect from 01.09.2008.

3. The MACPS was considered by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in “Union of India and Others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair”, (2020) 5 SCC 421 and other connected matters. This judgment elaborately compared the MACPS with the Assured Career Progression Scheme3[For short, “ACP.”], which was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999 and continued to remain in force till 31.08.2008. In a nutshell, this Court held that the MACPS differed from the ACPS on several aspects, including two significant ones. First, the ACPS envisaged financial upgradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service without one or two promotions, as the case may be, wherea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top