THE FOLLOWING POINTS SHOULD BE NOTED:
1. THIS REVISION PETION IS NOTHING TO DO WITH AIPAEA OA 2124 OF 2011. THE JUDGMENT HAS REACHED ITS FINALITY AND HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED ALL OVER THE PAOS.
2. THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO PAOS IS ONLY REGARDING THE NEW OAS FILED BY THE SIMILARLY PLACED EMPLOYEES.
3. THE CASE FILED BY THE SENIOR ACCOUNTANTS IN THE SUPREME COURT WAS WON AND THE DEPARTMENT FILED A REVIEW PETITION. THAT REVIEW PETITION IS YET TO BE DECIDED.
4. IN THE PA WING LETTER PARA 7 IS MISLEADING AND CONFUSING. THE OA FILED BY PATNA SENIOR ACCOUNTANTS OR 2124 OF AIPAEA IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HIERARCHAL PROMOTIONS UNDER MACP. BUT THE LETTER IS WRONGLY TRYING TO CONFUSE BY RELATING THIS WITH OUR OAS. SO PLEASE STUDY AND BRING THESE FACTS TO THE ADVOCATES CONCERNED TO DEFEND OUR CASES PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY.
Then how come seniors who are far above the applicant gradation list continues to draw less less pay /pension than their juniors far below in the gradation list not even equal pay and pension by implmentation of this OA. why different circles are implementing the judgement in different way when the northern circles have kept the difference in pay of junior and senior as personel pay and have implemented thejudgement up to ACP scheme only which was the prayer in the OA how come the southern circles have chosen to merge the difference of grade pay between the junior and senior in the basic pay why there is different type of implementation in the same department
ReplyDelete