AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member J.:-
Heard Shri Satya Prakash Pandeyu, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents at the admission stage.
This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:-
8.(a) Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to provide financial upgradation in Pay level 7 and 8 under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme of the Government/Indian Railways to the applicant from due date which has been provided to similarly situated Railway Employees/Train Managers/Guards in pursuance of the judgments and orders of Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in accordance with law.
B) Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to provide arrears of salary with admissible interest to the applicant after proper fixation in pay level 7 and 8 under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme from due date in accordance with law.
c)Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to properly revise and refix applicant's post retiral benefits after his refixation in 7 and 8 Pay level in pursuance of the MACP Scheme which has been extended to similarly situated Railway Employees/Train Managers/Guards in pursuance of the judgments and orders of Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
d). Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the grievance/representation of the applicant regarding financial upgradation in 07 & 8 level under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme of the Government from due to date.
e)Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
f)Award the cost of this application in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the representation of the applicant dated 19.06.2026 (received by the respondents on 09.07.2026), which is at Annexure-5, is pending before the respondents, but the respondents have neither shown any consideration nor any order has been passed on the said representation. He further submits that he would satisfy, if a direction is issued upon the respondent concerned to dispose of the said pending representation of the applicant, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within stipulated time as fixed by this Tribunal.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant submits that instant original application is barred by law of limitation as the applicant is seeking relief from 1987 onwards. However, he has no objection if a direction is issued for disposing of pending representation of the applicant, in accordance with law, within stipulated time.
In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and without going into the merits of the case, instant Original Application stands disposed of with a direction upon the competent Authority amongst the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant dated 19.06.2026, which is at Annexure-5 to this original application and to pass an appropriate decision, by way of reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicant, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Pending M.A., if any, also stands disposed of.