it2025_00526 — Applicant prayed for quashing the impugned Order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the National Informatics Centre and for direction to execute the Order, dated 22-5-2014 and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, allowances, increased quantum of terminal benefits, increased pension and interest on delayed payment

IT Rules

Applicant prayed for quashing the impugned Order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the National Informatics Centre and for direction to execute the Order, dated 22-5-2014 and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, allowances, increased quantum of terminal benefits, increased pension and interest on delayed payment — This chunk discusses the judgment in the case of Smt. Urmila Jain v. Union of India, Department of Electronics and Information and others (10/2022, nitisnewS 84, Principal Bench), dated 9-11-2021. I... — Facts: While holding the post of Scientist F since 2001, the Applicant claimed stepping up of pay at par with one Dr. J. K. Ghosh who was junior to her in the feeder cadre and promotional post. Her pay was stepped up. However, she came to know that much earlier to the promotion of Dr. J. K. Ghosh, one Mr. A. K. Jain was promoted to the post of Scientist F in 2006 and he too, was junior both in the feeder grade as well as promotional post. Applicant made a request for stepping up of pay at par with Mr. A. K. Jain. Since it was not executed, the Applicant had filed O.A. No. 3770 of 2014. This Tribunal by Order, dated 27-10-2016 directed the Respondents to pass a reasoned order explaining the difference between Shri A. K. Jain and the Applicant, as on 11-9-2006. Respondents rejected the case of the Applicant stating that the GID No. 20 below Rule 22 of Fundamental Rules dealt with stepping up of pay for the second time only, and that since Shri A. K. Jain joined the department in 1977, that is before the Applicant, and that too, on a different post. Hence the OA. Respondents contended that the request to get the pay stepped up with two different officers is not covered under Rule 22. Further, the entry level of the Applicant as against that of Mr. A.K. Jain, the promotions and the postings were different and cannot be at par with the Applicant.

IT Rules

Applicant prayed for quashing the impugned Order, dated 8-4-2016 passed by the National Informatics Centre and for direction to execute the Order, dated 22-5-2014 and to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, allowances, increased quantum of terminal benefits, increased pension and interest on delayed payment — This chunk discusses the judgment in the case of Smt. Urmila Jain v. Union of India, Department of Electronics and Information and others (10/2022, nitisnewS 84, Principal Bench), dated 9-11-2021. I... — Facts: While holding the post of Scientist F since 2001, the Applicant claimed stepping up of pay at par with one Dr. J. K. Ghosh who was junior to her in the feeder cadre and promotional post. Her pay was stepped up. However, she came to know that much earlier to the promotion of Dr. J. K. Ghosh, one Mr. A. K. Jain was promoted to the post of Scientist F in 2006 and he too, was junior both in the feeder grade as well as promotional post. Applicant made a request for stepping up of pay at par with Mr. A. K. Jain. Since it was not executed, the Applicant had filed O.A. No. 3770 of 2014. This Tribunal by Order, dated 27-10-2016 directed the Respondents to pass a reasoned order explaining the difference between Shri A. K. Jain and the Applicant, as on 11-9-2006. Respondents rejected the case of the Applicant stating that the GID No. 20 below Rule 22 of Fundamental Rules dealt with stepping up of pay for the second time only, and that since Shri A. K. Jain joined the department in 1977, that is before the Applicant, and that too, on a different post. Hence the OA. Respondents contended that the request to get the pay stepped up with two different officers is not covered under Rule 22. Further, the entry level of the Applicant as against that of Mr. A.K. Jain, the promotions and the postings were different and cannot be at par with the Applicant.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text