Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Sisir Kumar Ratho, A
R. Kumarasean – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the applicant's pay and service issues. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against the condonation of delay. (Para 6) |
| 3. judicial focus on delay and legal principles governing applications. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. ruling on the failure to justify delay in filing. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion rejecting the application. (Para 12) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
This MA has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 21 years, 6 months and 2 days in filing the Original Application.
2. The relief sought by the applicant in the OA is as follows:
“i) call for the records related to the Railway Board order in respect of Note 7 of Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Railway Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1986, dated19.09.1986, the A-9 Notification on the subject of Pay Fixation on stepping up of pay on par with juniors pay and after adding due increment before fixing the pay in revised pay and the A-7 rejection order No. U/P.721/GA/TN/24/99 dated20.04.1999 not allowing the option for allowing the increment due on 01.01.1986 before fixing the pay in the revised scale and to set aside the same as the A-7 decision is contradicting pay commission f
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
