Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A), Ranjit More, Chairman
5296/2018
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants seek 3rd macp upgradation relief. (Para 1) |
| 2. applicants' service history and promotions detailed. (Para 2) |
| 3. prior judgments and discrimination against similarly placed. (Para 3) |
| 4. applicants argue violation of equality, prior rulings. (Para 4) |
| 5. respondents defend counting nfs as macp offset. (Para 5) |
| 6. rebuttal: nfs not upgradation per judgments. (Para 6) |
| 7. issues framed; f.c. jain rules nfs as placement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 8. judicial precedents override dop&t nfs not upgradation. (Para 9) |
| 9. discrimination violates articles 14, 16. (Para 10) |
| 10. applicants entitled to 3rd macp post 30 years. (Para 11) |
| 11. oa allowed; grant 3rd macp directed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
The applicants are aggrieved by the Letter No. 24/10/2017 EC-III dated 02.04.2018 (Annexure A/1) issued by the respondents vide which they have denied them 3rd Financial Upgradation in Pay Band-3 (Rs.15600–39100) with Grade Pay Rs.7600 under the MACP Scheme . However, according to them, the respondents have wrongly treated their placement in the pay scale of Rs.7500–12000, as a financial upgradation for the purposes of the MACP Scheme . Thus, by filing the prese
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
