MACP ON PROMOTIONAL
HIERARCHY
HIERARCHY
SLP(C) NO. 21803/2014 (UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. M.V. MOHANAN NAIR) TAGGED WITH CASE NUMBERS SLP(C) NO. 22181/2014 , SLP(C) NO. 23335/2014, SLP(C) NO. 23333/2014, SLP(C) NO. 18227/2015
Case Details
STATUS PENDING
Special Leave Petition (Civil) 21803 / 2014
Petitioner UNION
OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
Respondent M.V.
MOHANAN NAIR
Advocate(Petitioner) MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
Advocate(Respondent) MR.
C. K. SASI
Appealed Against High
Court Details - Not Available
Matter is Connected To Connected Details - Not Available
Subject Matter MATTERS
RELATING TO JUDICIARY MATTERS PERTAINING TO EMPLOYEESOF DISTRICT COURTS AND
TRIBUNALS
Listing Details Likely
to be Listed on - 29/02/2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Saturday, February 13, 2016 - 11:35:19 AM
Shri Pillai Ji, why this confusion? Why the dates are frequently changing. Any how it is good news that the matter will be heard in this month only. It is requested that MOS's reply to parliamentary question may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hope for the best...
ReplyDeleteThe case may please be defended in such a way that all the ldcs n udcs could get sure benefit of this case. Please reiterate the fact of reply given by most in Parliament and bring the matter to the notice of SC how the govt is cheating the lower rung cadres
ReplyDeleteRightly said RS The SC might have preponed the hearing since the MoS reply to the parliament indirectly directs all the affected persons to file cases in various courts/forums. Lets us hope for a positive judgement on 29.02.2016.
DeleteThe MOS's reply in parliament question regarding MACP in promotional hierarchy give a positive direction to the case so kindly attached the same with case. Only due to this the case being prepended.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court bench is in total chaos and confusion in deciding the case.
ReplyDeleteHope for best. Supreme court is also in favour of employees only. Otherwise each and every employee has to go to court and trouble the judges so that the cases will increase more and more. The MOS reply is not satisfactorily. As per his remark each individual go and fight for his right then only they will get justice. This is the blunder reply given by MOS
ReplyDeleteSir, I am appt on 14 sep 2004 and on the same day other pers appt as schedule caste.He was promoted as UDC wef 01 Dec 2013 and gtd Grade Pay Rs 2400/-. However, MACP gtd to me wef 14 Sep 2014 with the Grade Pay Rs 2000/-. Sir, its right not gave status/promotion to me but Grade Pay must be Rs 2400/-for alive a normal life. My mail id is ravinderkumar_27@yahoo.in
ReplyDeleteDont be disappointed Mr.Ravinder Kumar. Promotion has nothing to do with financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. A UDC gets Grade pay of Rs.2400/- on his promotion whereas in MACP a LDC gets Grade pay of Rs.2000/- on completion of ten years of regular service under the existing MACP guidelines and you should not compare yourself with a promotee. As per existing Scheme, you have rightly been granted Grade pay of Rs.2000/- which of course is not a huge financial benefit. One must get atleast Rs.1000/- on grant of financial upgradation so that after ten years of service, if one does not get any promotion, he can be compensated to some extent.
DeleteMr. Ravinder Kumar,the whole purpose of this SC case is to get the scale of promotion post on MACP. Let us hope for the best.
DeleteIt must be impressed upon the Supreme Court that the Orders of granting Financial up gradation under the MACP should be for all irrespective of class/cadre and not limited to those whose's name figure in the petitions. The problem is with most cadres and not limited to LDC OR UDC
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is hope supreme court have given positive decision and change the policy so many cg govn employees are effect
ReplyDeletePl see the SC list of hearings on 29.02.2016. Our case has been eliminated due to excess matters and is being noted for hearing on 08.03.2016. Lets hope for the best.
ReplyDeleteIt can be seen at Sl. No.237 of the lists as under :
ReplyDelete237. SLP(C) NO. 21803/2014
XIA A/N-H
3RD LISTING
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
VS.
M.V. MOHANAN NAIR
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR INTERVENTION
AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE
REPORT)
MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
MR. C. K. SASI
MR. G. PRAKASH
MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD
GOYAL
[ELIMINATED DUE TO EXCESS MATTERS. NOW THIS MATTER IS NOTED FOR BEING LISTED ON
08-03-2016]
WITH
SLP(C) NO. 22181/2014
IVB A/N-H
U.O.I.& ORS.
VS.
REETA DEVI
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
MR. O. P. BHADANI
SLP(C) NO. 23335/2014
IVB A/N-H
U.O.I.
VS.
DHIRENDER SINGH & ORS.
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
MR. O. P. BHADANI
SLP(C) NO. 23333/2014
IVB A/N-H
U.O.I.
VS.
BABU RAM & ORS.
MR. B. V. BALARAM DAS
MR. O. P. BHADANI
MR. SUDHIR NAAGAR
SLP(C) NO. 18227/2015
XIV A/N-H
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
VS.
RAJINI KANTA DEKA AND ORS.
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE
REPORT)
MS. SUSHMA SURI
MR. SUNIL KUMAR JAIN
I wonder as to why the said case is required to be re-listed/ eliminated again and again.
ReplyDeleteOnce again hearing date has been changed. NDOH 08.03.2016
ReplyDelete