PRAMOD PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The impugned order under challenge in the present writ application is dated 05.05.2017 which has been passed in O.A. No. 545 of 2013. The batch of petitioners in the writ application were all applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), Patna Bench, Patna and they filed the Original Application (in short the "O.A.") to set aside the decision dated 05.04.2013 and other analogous orders like order dated 01.08.2013, because the respondents authorities decided to re-work the benefit of ACP and MACP on the ground that the applicants can claim the benefit of MACP or ACP only from the date of absorption.

(3.) Arguments were made before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench that the matter being squarely covered and answered by other Benches like Bangluru and Guwahati, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, should also fall in line and pass an order in conformity by holding such decision to re-work the grant of ACP or MACP from the date of absorption instead date of entry into service to be bad.