Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
R. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service history and pay scale dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. precedents supporting retrospective pay upgrade from 1996. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. widespread implementation of similar orders. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. limitation, laches, and fence-sitter arguments against relief. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. background of anomaly committee and prior litigations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. affirmation of hyderabad order for cbic parity. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. no delay bar; parity for similarly situated employees. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. article 14 equality mandates uniform retrospective benefits. (Para 34 , 35 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. notional pay from 1996, actual from 2004. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
The applicant has filed the OA seeking the following relief:
“A) ….To call for records and proceedings of the case which led to the passing of the orders I.e (I) Office Memorandum in File No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.2004 ie Annexure -A1 and (ii) Office Memorandum in File No.2-26017/65/2003-Ad.II- A(Pt) dated 11.05.2004 i.e Annexure A.2 its subsequent (latest) Office Memorandum in File No
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
