Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjana Shahi, Judicial Member, Lok Ranjan, Administrative Member
Mukul Bhatnagar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants challenge denial of nfu promotion. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. ad-hoc/rt aao service not counted for nfu. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. applicants claim ad-hoc service qualifies for nfu. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. prior judgments distinguish ad-hoc from regular service. (Para 10 , 11 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. coordinate benches uphold nfu regular service requirement. (Para 12 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. distinct aao categories justify differential nfu treatment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. statutory rules mandate regular service for nfu. (Para 22) |
| 8. oa dismissed; no nfu for ad-hoc/rt aaos. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present application on behalf of 10Applicants(initially by 17of which 07 had been deleted vide M.A. No.298/2021 dated 08.07.2021) had been filed upon being aggrieved by the impugned Letter dated 09.01.2019 issued by the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General of India (C.&A.G.) – with a common content although which had been conveyed to the Applicants individually by the Accountant General, Accounts & Entitlements (A.&E.), i.e. Respondent No.4 vide communication dated 23.01.2019 – thereby denying to the Applicants the grant of Non-Functio
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
