Union of India vs Manju Arora - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1

R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Manju Arora – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Meera Patel, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ayush Puri, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. I. B Gaur, AOR Mr. Rajeev Manglik, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Adv. Mr. J.P. Singh, Adv. Ms. Tanya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR

JUDGMENT :

HRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Ms. Meera Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the matters. The respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 7027-7028 of 2009 are represented by Mr. Rajiv Manglik, learned counsel. In Civil Appeal Nos. 7150-7151 of 2009, the respective respondents are represented by learned counsel Mr. Piyush Sharma and Mr. A.P. Dhamija.

2. The respondents herein are claiming the benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short “ACP Scheme”) for the Central Government civilian employees under the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India. The ACP Scheme provided for financial upgradation to the next higher grade of pay for those employees who could not get promotion after 12 years of service. Second upgradation is similarly admissible after 24 years of service.

3. Suman Lata Bhatia and Manju Arora who were appointed as Senior Translator (Hindi), were offered promotion to the higher post of Translation Officer (Hindi) on regular basis. But due to personal grounds, they refused the offered promotions. However, the benefits under the ACP Scheme were given to the respondents on 15.11

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1

R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROYUnion of India – AppellantVersusManju Arora – Respondent

R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Manju Arora – Respondent