Monthly Archives: July 2014

LATEST JUDGEMENT of DELHI HIGH COURT on MACP ON PROMOTIONAL HIERARCHY – WP (C) 3608-2014 –

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3608/2014

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH and TRAINING
….. Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.

versus

OM PRAKASH and ORS ….. Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R

14.07.2014

The petitioner/NCERT is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ?CAT?) dated 12 March, 2014 whereby the respondents? claim to be placed in the pay scale `9300- 34800/- with grade pay of `5400/- was directed to be considered.

The NCERT submits – his counsel argues- that the CAT fell into error in making the impugned directions at the first hearing. It was submitted that the CAT should not have directed the grant of relief once it was brought to its notice that the NCERT, on 26 November, 2013, had consciously considered and rejected the claim of higher pay scale.

The impugned order of the CAT is premised upon the respondents? entitlement to the pay scale claimed by them which, in turn, was based on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 19387/2011. That judgment was not interfered with by the Supreme Court even though SLP(CC) 7467/2013 was preferred. The NCERT?s rejection of the respondents?

claim for the higher pay scale appears to be solely based on the absence of any DOPT instructions pursuant to the Punjab High Court?s orders. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no direction to grant pay scale, the NCERT should pass a reasoned order indicating its reasons for denying the pay scale claimed by the respondents. In other words, its reasons cannot merely be absence of DOPT instructions, but have to be more substantial, upon application of mind to the judgments and directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in its orders.

In view of the above, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

VIPIN SANGHI, J

JULY 14, 2014

An

Source: [http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=137736&yr=2014]

%d bloggers like this: