Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjana Shahi, Judicial Member, Lok Ranjan, Administrative Member
Siddharth Goswami – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of retiring employees denied increment (Para 1) |
| 2. reliefs sought and retirement facts (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. pay rule amendment denies increment on retirement (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. prior judgments settle entitlement to increment (Para 6) |
| 5. issue covered by recent tribunal orders (Para 7) |
| 6. supreme court affirms increment for one-year service (Para 8 , 9) |
| 7. directs grant of notional increment and arrears (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
At the request of learned counsels for the parties, OA No. 557/2023 and OA No. 633/2023 are taken up together for disposal as common question of law and facts is involved in both the aforesaid OAs.
2. For the sake of convenience, brief facts of OA No. 557/2023 are taken up. The OA No. 557/2023 has been filed by the applicants praying for the following reliefs: -
“I. By an appropriate order or direction, the respondent be directed to extend / accord the benefits of One Annual Grade Increment (AGI) as the applicants have completed one year service since last AGI was sanctioned on the date of retirement i.e. 30th June / 31st December, with all consequential benefits including revision of the last pay drawn and after making
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
