Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM, Mallika Arya, AM
C. Venugopalan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion entitlement and dpc delays. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding administrative reasons for delay. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's view on dpc conduct and justification. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. evaluation standards for delays. (Para 9) |
| 5. final directives for review and promotion. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
The applicant is aggrieved by the part of the order dated 24.09.2018, whereby the respondents have denied the actual benefits of promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer to him w.e.f. 01.04.2014, whereas the promotion has been made for existing vacancies for the year 2014-15.
2. The applicant has stated in his Original Application that he was initially appointed as LDC on 24.06.1985 and by way of promotion and financial upgradation, he was granted the Grade Pay of Rs.2800. The post of Assistant has now been re-designated as Assistant Administrative Officer. In the year, 2014-15, the applicant was due for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer w.e.f. 01.04.2014. However, as the DPC was not conducted by the respondents, the applicant could not be promoted in the year 2014-15. The respondents
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
