Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, Judicial Member
Mahipal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. party details and respondents listed (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. vacancies sanctioned pre-nps, ads post-nps (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. respondents deny ops due to post-nps advertisement (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. applicants argue vacancy notification date governs (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. om 03.03.2023 allows ops for pre-22.12.2003 notifications (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. prior judgments uphold pre-nps vacancy notification (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. parity with similarly placed employees under article 14 (Para 25) |
| 8. applicants entitled to ops coverage (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
O R D E R
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
THE ISSUE
1. The issue involved in this case is whether the applicants have vested legal right for coverage under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules instead of NPS though appointed after 01.01.2004 against posts or vacancies notified-released for recruitment prior to 22.11.2003, the date of notification for NPS or 01.01.2004 but the advertisement published after 01.01.2004?
THE PRAYER
2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following main relief [a
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
