Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 09 CAT CK 0089

Sube Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 20 September 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ajay Kumar, J · A.K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 3633 Of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 251 words

V. Ajay Kumar, J

1.

The applicant, who retired as Superintendent, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008, filed the OA seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Direct the respondents to grant financial upgradation in OM No.35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.05.2009 as per his entitlement with all retrospective benefits.

(ii) Call for all the records of the respondents pertaining to all such financial upgradation including that of Mr. Surinder Singh.

(iii) Grant consequential reliefs in terms of the prayer (i) to (ii) above".

2.

Heard Shri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

3.

In short, the applicant is seeking a direction to the respondents to grant the financial upgradations under MACP Scheme issued vide Annexure A-5 Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009. A bare perusal of the said OM dated 19.05.2009, reveals that the said MACP Scheme came into operation with effect from 01.09.2008 and the financial upgradations, as per the provisions of the earlier ACP Scheme of August, 1999, would be granted till 31.08.2008. When, admittedly, the applicant retired from service on 30.06.2008, i.e., even before the OM dated 19.05.2009 came into force, we do not find any merit in the OA, which was filed seeking granting of financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme which came into force with effect from 01.09.2008.

4.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.