Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (J), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Bhrigu Nath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants are retired/promoted inspectors/superintendents seeking pay revision. (Para 1 , 11 , 28) |
| 2. reliefs sought: notional pay benefits from 01.01.1996. (Para 2) |
| 3. pay scales upgraded in 2004, disparity with other departments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. applicants argue parity from 01.01.1996; precedents support. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. respondents oppose retrospective pay revision. (Para 10) |
| 6. cat mumbai/calcutta ordered notional benefits from 1996. (Para 13) |
| 7. high court directed special anomaly committee; benefits granted. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. similar reliefs upheld by courts for other departments. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 9. judicial discipline requires equal treatment for similarly situated. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. violation of article 14; entitle notional pay from 01.01.1996. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. oa allowed; grant notional benefits from 1996, actual from 2004. (Para 27) |
O R D E R
Delivered by Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is being decided at this stage itself.
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
