In Brief
A retired government employee (TV News and Film Librarian at Doordarshan) sought financial upgradation benefits under the ACP and MACP Schemes. She received MACP benefits in 2010 and 2015 without complaint, then in October 2016 claimed she should have received higher ACP benefits from March 2009. The Supreme Court held that although her representation was rejected on valid procedural grounds (being time-barred and "stale"), and the Tribunal's order should not have been entertained, the Court exercised Article 142 powers to allow her to retain the benefits already received, given her age and need for financial security in retirement.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.