Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, J, Anjani Nandan Sharan, A
Prabhu Nath Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of retired cbic applicants and respondents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. pay scale disparity and delayed upgrades for cbic. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. applicants' parity claims; respondents oppose retrospectivity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. cat precedents mandate notional pay from 1996. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. railway/postal accounts granted 1996 pay benefits. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. judicial discipline requires equal treatment. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. article 14 violation in denying retrospective parity. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. grant notional pay upgrade from 01.01.1996. (Para 27 , 28) |
O R D E R
Delivered by Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Heard Shri Satish Sahu, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is being disposed of at this stage itself.
2. The instant Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicants seeking following relief(s):-
“a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicants are entitled for upgradation of pay since 01.01.1996 with all cons
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
