Supreme Court of India is testing the petience of government servants. One way SC says no stay beyond 6 months and it is taking 4 years and not settled the issue.
It is to late all government servant are eagerly waiting MACP ON PROMOTIONAL from last 4 years. i request Modi government to rectifie the matter for the betterment of govt servant
Justice Chalameshwar was part of the bench. After his retirement new judge has to be put in 3 the judge bench. CJI Deepak Mishra is not putting third judge.
SLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017 Respondent nos. 1 to 13, 15,17,18,20 to 23, 26 and 27 have failed to file counter affidavit despite last opportunity having been granted, as such, further opportunity is declined. Service is complete on respondent no.6 but vakalatnama has not been filed. Be filed. Await orders of Hon'ble Judge in Chambers in respect of respondent no.36. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps for effecting service on respondent nos.14,16 and 19, as such, registry to process the matter as per rules for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders.
ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. KAPIL MEHTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21803/2014 UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS M.V. MOHANAN NAIR Respondent(s) (Only SLP (C) Nos. 35001, 32992 of 2016, 16839-73 of 2017, 21875 of 2017, 20069-20071/2017, 27058-70/2016, 20058-102/2016 and 2163-2165 of 2018 is to listed before the is to be listed before the Court of Ld. Registrar on 30.07.2018. ) WITH SLP(C) No. 32992/2016 (XV) (matter to be listed before three Judges Bench.) SLP(C) No. 35001/2016 (XV) (matter to be listed before three Judges Bench.) SLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017 (IV-A) SLP(C) No. 2163-2165/2018 (XI-A) Date : 30-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr Om Prakash, Adv. Mr Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Mr Jishnu M.L., Adv. Mrs Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mrs Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR -2- Item No.19 Mr. Naveen R. Nath, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv. Mr Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv. Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Ms Ipsita Behura, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR Mr M Chandra Sekhar, Adv. Mr V Sudeer, Adv. Mr M.B.Ramasubba Raju, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No. 32992/2016, SLP(C) No. 35001/2016 Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps for effecting service on respondent no.2, as such, registry to process the matter as per rules for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders. SLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017 Respondent nos. 1 to 13, 15,17,18,20 to 23, 26 and 27 have failed to file counter affidavit despite last opportunity having been granted, as such, further opportunity is declined. Service is complete on respondent no.6 but vakalatnama has not been filed. Be filed. Await orders of Hon'ble Judge in Chambers in respect of respondent no.36. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps for effecting service on respondent nos.14,16 and 19, as such, registry to process the matter as per rules for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders. -3- Item no.19 SLP(C) No. 2163-2165/2018 Respondent nos. 1 to 25 and 27 to 42 have filed counter affidavit. Respondent no.26(i) is granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. List again on 5.9.2018. KAPIL MEHTA Registrar 30.07.2018 hj
SC can hear petition for yakoob menon in mid night but not for common man /Govt. servant because their grievance/dissent will not affect pressure cooker burst.
Cut-up date as 30.8.2008 should be waved by which sufferers will be benifitted to get ACP on promotional heirarchy,as allowed to prior emplyees .option should be allowed ,
When there is clear cut instruction in ACP and was given hierarchy pay scale which was provided before implimating MACP. Now there is only change in name why supreme court is hesitating to give verdicts. How many peoples curse will take to give the verdict. Present President and Prime Minister's instead of foreign trip please take personal intervention, otherwise peoples will loose their trust on judicial.
I think the 7th pay commission recommend uniform scale for both CSS service and attached/subordinate services. However, the govt. continue to give step-motherly treatment for the attached/subordinate service employees'. Now, the supreme court reluctant to give their judgement on promotion hierarchy. It is beyond my reach, Whether the govt. role is there in this case. Various High Court has given their verdict that MACP should be on promotion hierarchy. What is the next date of hearing.
Supreme Court of India is testing the petience of government servants. One way SC says no stay beyond 6 months and it is taking 4 years and not settled the issue.
ReplyDeleteYou exactly right now
Deletetarikh pe tarikh akhir kab tak,
ReplyDeleteIt is to late all government servant are eagerly waiting MACP ON PROMOTIONAL from last 4 years. i request Modi government to rectifie the matter for the betterment of govt servant
ReplyDeleteWait frinds ACHHE DIN AAYEGE
ReplyDeleteJustice Chalameshwar was part of the bench. After his retirement new judge has to be put in 3 the judge bench. CJI Deepak Mishra is not putting third judge.
ReplyDeleteSLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017
ReplyDeleteRespondent nos. 1 to 13, 15,17,18,20 to 23, 26 and 27
have failed to file counter affidavit despite last
opportunity having been granted, as such, further opportunity
is declined.
Service is complete on respondent no.6 but vakalatnama
has not been filed. Be filed.
Await orders of Hon'ble Judge in Chambers in respect of
respondent no.36.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps
for effecting service on respondent nos.14,16 and 19, as
such, registry to process the matter as per rules for
listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate
orders.
ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XI-A
ReplyDeleteS U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. KAPIL MEHTA
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21803/2014
UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M.V. MOHANAN NAIR Respondent(s)
(Only SLP (C) Nos. 35001, 32992 of 2016, 16839-73 of 2017, 21875 of
2017, 20069-20071/2017, 27058-70/2016, 20058-102/2016 and 2163-2165
of 2018 is to listed before the is to be listed before the Court of
Ld. Registrar on 30.07.2018.
)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 32992/2016 (XV)
(matter to be listed before three Judges Bench.)
SLP(C) No. 35001/2016 (XV)
(matter to be listed before three Judges Bench.)
SLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 2163-2165/2018 (XI-A)
Date : 30-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Mr Om Prakash, Adv.
Mr Vibhu Shanker Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR
Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR
Mr Jishnu M.L., Adv.
Mrs Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Mrs Beena Prakash, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR
-2-
Item No.19
Mr. Naveen R. Nath, AOR
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR
Mr Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv.
Mr Naresh Kumar Gaur, Adv.
Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR
Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR
Ms Ipsita Behura, Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR
Mr M Chandra Sekhar, Adv.
Mr V Sudeer, Adv.
Mr M.B.Ramasubba Raju, Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C) No. 32992/2016, SLP(C) No. 35001/2016
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps
for effecting service on respondent no.2, as such, registry
to process the matter as per rules for listing before the
Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders.
SLP(C) No. 16839-16873/2017
Respondent nos. 1 to 13, 15,17,18,20 to 23, 26 and 27
have failed to file counter affidavit despite last
opportunity having been granted, as such, further opportunity
is declined.
Service is complete on respondent no.6 but vakalatnama
has not been filed. Be filed.
Await orders of Hon'ble Judge in Chambers in respect of
respondent no.36.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not taken fresh steps
for effecting service on respondent nos.14,16 and 19, as
such, registry to process the matter as per rules for
listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate
orders.
-3-
Item no.19
SLP(C) No. 2163-2165/2018
Respondent nos. 1 to 25 and 27 to 42 have filed counter
affidavit.
Respondent no.26(i) is granted four weeks time for
filing counter affidavit.
List again on 5.9.2018.
KAPIL MEHTA
Registrar
30.07.2018
hj
इन लोगों को केस नहीं करना चाहिए था । जो समय का महत्व नहीं समझते हैं । इनकी वजह से कहीं केस हार न जाए ।
ReplyDeletePrime Minister Office me complaint likhana chahiye. 6 months me reply aata hai.
ReplyDeletestagnant post ke liye MACP on promotioanl hierarchy is must.
SC can hear petition for yakoob menon in mid night but not for common man /Govt. servant because their grievance/dissent will not affect pressure cooker burst.
ReplyDeleteExecutive is interfering in the functions of SC. At the instance of executive the SC is deferring the case indefinitely.
ReplyDeleteAny update, whether the case was taken up today or the same old story....
ReplyDeletethe case is listed for hearing on 11.10.2018 as usual.
ReplyDeleteIs there any official post from the association
ReplyDeleteAny interim statement/order made by SC on September 5, 2018 or just pushing the date ?
ReplyDeleteHgggbn
ReplyDeleteCut-up date as 30.8.2008 should be waved by which sufferers will be benifitted to get ACP on promotional heirarchy,as allowed to prior emplyees .option should be allowed ,
ReplyDeleteWhen there is clear cut instruction in ACP and was given hierarchy pay scale which was provided before implimating MACP. Now there is only change in name why supreme court is hesitating to give verdicts. How many peoples curse will take to give the verdict. Present President and Prime Minister's instead of foreign trip please take personal intervention, otherwise peoples will loose their trust on judicial.
ReplyDeleteNext date of hearing is 11.10.2018. But it is doubtfull as to whether it will be heard. Because the matter is now on "Tarikh pe Tarikh" mode.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened today,Kindly update
ReplyDeleteany update on 11th oct case?
ReplyDeletewas the case heard or 11/10/18 ...... or the same old story..... shaji. d. tvm
ReplyDeleteWhat is the status of the case, can any one able to update
ReplyDeletekindly update the status of macp case scheduled to be heard on 11-10-2018
ReplyDeleteThe case is listed for hearing on 13.11.2018.
ReplyDeleteAny update on hearing on 13.11.2018.
ReplyDeleteNext date is 16.01.19
ReplyDeleteAny updates on todays (i.e. 16/01/2019) hearing
ReplyDeleteI think the 7th pay commission recommend uniform scale for both CSS service and attached/subordinate services. However, the govt. continue to give step-motherly treatment for the attached/subordinate service employees'. Now, the supreme court reluctant to give their judgement on promotion hierarchy. It is beyond my reach, Whether the govt. role is there in this case. Various High Court has given their verdict that MACP should be on promotion hierarchy. What is the next date of hearing.
ReplyDeleteNext date of hearing is 01.03.19.
ReplyDelete