Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SUNIL THOMAS, J, V.RAMA MATHEW, ACJ
P.P.Nandakumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the applicant's pay advancements must align with prescribed acp and macp norms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. key questions regarding acp eligibility highlight nuances in employment status and prior benefits. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal precedents guide recovery processes and confirm applicant's rights. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. misinterpretations led to unfounded claims for financial upgrades, necessitating rectification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. tribunal's ruling ensures equitable financial treatment and mandates procedure corrections. (Para 12) |
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The factual matrix is as follows :
The applicant was appointed as a Head Constable Trainee on 02.05.1990 and was posted on regular basis as a Constable in the scale of pay of Rs.825-1200 with effect from 02.01.1991. The pay of the RPF Personnel were equated with the pay of the Delhi Police personnel with effect from 04.12.1997 by order dated 01.12.1997 of the Ministry of Railways. Thus, the pay of a RPF Constable was revised to Rs.3050- 4590 with effect from 04.12.1997. On completion of 12 years of regular service the applicant was granted 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme to scale of p
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
