Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Om Prakash Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The petitioners have assailed the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.07.2021 passed in O.A. No.328 of 2021 along with M.A. No.353 of 2021 and M.A. No.352 of 2021. The grievances of the petitioners are that petitioners were initially appointed to the post of P. Way Mistries and it was re-designated as P. Way Supervisor on 01.10.1996. Further the post of P. Way Supervisor was redesignated as J.E. (P. Way) Grade-II on 09.10.2003. In this backdrop identical situated persons who have approached judicial forum and have got relief. On the other hand, petitioners’ grievances have not been redressed, resultantly petitioners were compelled to file O.A. No.328 of 2021. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal while disposing of O.A. No.328 of 2021 passed the following orders. Paragraph nos.5 & 6 of the order reads as under:—
“5. Considered the submissions. Here there are 23 applicants but Annexure-R/3 reveals that it is given by seven employees only. Anyhow liberty is granted to the applicants who have not filed representation earlier, to file representation within two weeks of this order. Without going into the merits of the OA, we think it would be appropri
The court established that a transition involving higher pay and service requirements constitutes a promotion, affecting eligibility for benefits under the MACP Scheme.
Placement as Master Craftsman does not constitute a promotion; hence employees remain eligible for financial upgradation under the MACP despite the 6th Pay Commission's pay scale revisions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
