SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 240

R.BANUMATHI, A.S.BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
M. V. Mohanan Nair – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Jaideep Gupta, Kunal Chatterji, Pravar Veer Mishra, Madhvi Divan, Kailash Vasdev, Priyanka Das, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Akshay Amritanshu, Anish Kr. Gupta, Pranay Ranjan, S.K. Gupta, Sumit Upadhyay, Rekha Pandey, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S.S. Ray, Vijay Prakash, B.V. Balram Das, Alka Agarwal, Baldev Atrey, B. Krishna Prasad, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Sahil Monga, Anil Katiyar, Priya Mishra, Arun Kumar Yadav, Surender Kumar Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shubham Saurav, A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG Mrs.Anil Katiyar, Rekha Pandey, Vimla Sinha, B.K. Prasad, Vijay Prakash, Rajeev Sharma, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Pradeep Kr. Mittal, Shivetima D., Simanta Kr., Saurabh Kr., Raj Kishor Choudhary, K. Rajeev, Advocates
For the Respondent:Vinay Kumar Garg, O. P. Bhadani, C. K. Sasi, Nayantara Roy, Abdulla N., Somya Gupta, P.A. Kulkarni, Punam Kumari, Yatindra Sharma, Prashant Kumar, G. Umapathy, Vaishnavi, Rakesh K. Sharma, G. Tushar Rao, Mayank Sharma, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Pavitra, Rakesh K. Sharma, D.K. Thakur, Devendra Jha, Shivaraju H.B., Rituparn Uniyal, Abhishek Kumar, For Debasis Misra, Mrs.Prabha Swami, Nikhil Swami, Divya Swami, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mrs.Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Naveen R. Nath, Rahul Jain, A. N. Arora, Sumita Hazarika, Ipsita Behura, Sunil Kumar Jain, M. B. Ramasubba Raju, E.P. Gopinathan, Megha, Balaji Srinivasan, R.S. Rajiv, K. Rajeev, Mohan Kumar, Manoj V. George, Shilpa Liza George, K.M. Vignesh Ram, Bhavika, Zulfiker Ali P.S., Advocates

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant batch of appeals have been filed assailing the orders of various High Courts dismissing petitions filed by the appellants, thereby upholding decisions rendered by different Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal granting financial upgradation of grade pay in the next promotional hierarchy by placing reliance upon Union of India and others v. Raj Pal and another CWP No. 19387 of 2011 dated 19.10.2011. In these batch matters, we are concerned with the question whether MACP Scheme entitles financial upgradation to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional hierarchy.

3. In all these appeals, almost all the High Courts have followed the Raj Pal and Ved Prakash's case and granted relief as prayed for by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the appellant-UOI has filed these appeals.

4. The main questions falling for consideration in these appeals are:-

    (i) Whether MACP scheme entitles financial upgradation of pay to the next grade pay or to the grade pay of the next promotional post as envisaged under the ACP scheme?


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top