Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Original Applications N0. 060/00835/2016. Case: P.K. Sarin Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case Number:Original Applications N0. 060/00835/2016
Party Name:P.K. Sarin Vs Union of India and Ors.
Counsel:For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Adv.
Judges:Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J) and Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member(A)
Issue:Administrative Law
Judgement Date:May 23, 2017
Court:Central Administrative Tribunal

Order:

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A), (Chandigarh Bench)

  1. The applicant joined as Junior Engineer on 02.08.1976 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1984. He was allowed 2nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) in the scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- w.e.f. 1.7.2006. According to him, his 3rd MACP was due w.e.f. 1.9.2008. Since, the same was not granted to him, he filed Original Application No. 060/00144/2015 before this Tribunal. This O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal on 24.5.2016 with a direction to the respondents that grant of 3rd MACP benefit to the applicant may be considered by them on yearly basis commencing from the year 2010 and thereafter. In compliance thereof, the respondents have considered his case, but have found him to be unfit. Consequently, he has approached this Tribunal by filing this Original Application and seeking the following reliefs:

    -- (A) To quash assessment of the Screening Committee dated 27.4.2016 declaring applicant unfit for grant of 3rd MACP in the grades pay of 7600/- w.e.f. 1.4.2013 Annexure A-1.

    (B) Direct the respondents to grant the 3rd MACP in the grade pay of 7600/- w.e.f. 1.4.2013.

    (C) To grant the interest on the arrears of pay, pension, gratuity and others dues if any @ 12% per annum compound.

    (D) To fix the time limit to implement the order of Honble Tribunal.

    (E) Cost amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for avoidable litigation.

    (F) Pass any other or such order(s) which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.--

  2. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that the applicant had approached the Tribunal earlier by filing O.A. NO. 060/00144/2015, in which directions were given to the respondents to consider applicants claim for 3rd MACP on yearly basis commencing from the year 2010. Further they have stated that the benchmark for granting 3rd MACP with Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- is Very Good. The Screening Committee decided that APARs of 5 years of the relevant years be considered and those having Very Good grading in at least 2.5 years may be assessed as fit for grant of MAPC benefit. The applicant, however, did not fulfil this criteria and was assessed as unfit for grant of this benefit year-wise till 1.4.2014. Thereafter, the applicant had retired and consequently consideration of MACP benefit after retirement did not arise.

  3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record.

  4. The applicants...

To continue reading

Request your trial