Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, Administrative Member
Asutosh Johari – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of applicant's service and acp denial. (Para 2) |
| 2. uncommunicated below-benchmark acrs must be ignored. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. reviewing officer as dsc chair violates natural justice. (Para 6) |
| 4. dsc minutes show applicant met all acp norms. (Para 7) |
| 5. macp not substitute for due acp benefits. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. dsc followed acp norms; applicant unfit due to acrs. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. dopt om requires communication of below-benchmark acrs. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. macp granted; acp claim denied, oa dismissed. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“A. Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to grant the benefits of second A.C.P. to the applicant with effect from dated-25/06/2008, with grade pay of Rs.5400/-, within stipulated time as fixed by Hon’ble Tribunal. As per provisions of DOPT OM no.-35034/1/97-Estt(D), dated-09/08/1999, the second ACP of the applicant was due on dated-25/06/2008, after completion of 24 years of service.
B. Hon’ble Tribunal may als
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
