Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay Bench, seeking relief under the time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) scheme and the application of FR 22-c for pay fixation upon promotion. The Tribunal initially granted the benefit of FR 22-c but later mistakenly rejected a clarification petition regarding this relief. The appellant was subsequently promoted but did not receive the pay fixation as directed. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, agreed with the Tribunal's initial reasoning regarding FR 22-c but noted the error in the clarification petition. The Court acknowledged that the Government had conceded the appellant's claim, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of FR 22-c for pay fixation. Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed, and the Court directed that the appellant's pay should be fixed accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Pay Fixation - Entitlement to FR 22-c - Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, Section Not Mentioned - The appellant sought the benefit of FR 22-c for pay fixation upon promotion as Lower Selection Grade Accountant, which was initially granted by the Tribunal but later denied in a clarification petition. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's claim and held that the pay should be fixed under FR 22-c as conceded by the Government. (Paras Not Mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of FR 22-c for pay fixation upon promotion.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant's pay should be fixed under FR 22-c upon promotion as Lower Selection Grade Accountant, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Administrative law
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- pay fixation
- FR 22-c
- promotion scheme
