Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Mallika Arya, Administrative Member
Ajay Arela – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of acp pay scale claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants and respondents argue acp hierarchy and rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court notes iifm recommendation and acp scheme separation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. retrospective rules require justification per mha instructions. (Para 9) |
| 5. delhi hc: acp based on existing hierarchy, not clarifications. (Para 10) |
| 6. apex court: retrospective rules cannot violate vested rights. (Para 11) |
| 7. quash order, grant acp pay scale without arrears. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM:
Through this Original Application, the applicants are seeking quashment of the order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure A/14) passed by Respondent no. 3. They are seeking direction to the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the applicants w.e.f. 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively and the difference of salary along with interest.
2. Brielfy stating, the facts of the case are that the applicants were working on the post of Senior Library and Information Assistant in the Respondent department. The applicants became due for first ACP on completion of 12 years of service with effect from 03.02.2006 and 01.08.2006 respectively. On the da
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
