AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant states that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the 1st respondent herein, on 04.11.1987
and was extended the benefit of 1st ACP in 1999. Through an order dated 06.05.2010, she was extended the benefit of 2nd MACP w.e.f. 01.09.2008.
She contends that the 2nd MACP was extendable to her on completion of 20 years of service which fell on 04.11.2007, and since the Scheme itself
came into force on 01.01.2006, there is no impediment for that. It is stated that the applicant made several representations in this behalf but the
respondents did not take any steps.
We heard Shri Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Pratima Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
The grievance of the applicant is about the effective date, from which the benefit of 2nd MACP is to be granted. The Scheme is self contained one
and is clear. Apart from indicating the timing and method of extension, it also provides for the procedure to be followed in that behalf. A semblance of
selection process is also involved. The question as to whether the applicant is entitled to be extended the benefit of 2nd MACP with effect from any
earlier date, needs to be examined by the respondents. We cannot record any finding at this stage.
We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation of the applicant within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the applicant to make another representation as regards any other grievance also. There
shall be no order as to costs.
MA also stands disposed of.