SREEKUMAR Y vs Shri Sanjay Mitra IAS Secretary M/o Defence N Delh on 11 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM Order Sheet Item no.: 10 C.P./44/2019 (ERNAKULAM) [ CPC ] In O.A./22/2017 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 14 Order Dated: 11/11/2026 SREEKUMAR Y Vs SHRI SANJAY MITRA IAS SECRETARY M/O DEFENCE N DELH For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. S. Radhakrishnan For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SPC Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal Regarding the question of implementation, both sides were heard. This Tribunal by order dated 30.10.2026 has ordered as follows :- "Today, the learned Standing Counsel has filed reply statement on behalf of the 4th respondent. Referring to Exhibit P5, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already been granted 2nd MACP with effect from 01.07.2016 in Level 7 of the pay matrix, raising the pay to the scale of Rs. 44,900/- - 1,42,400/-. He has invited our attention to Annexure P-6 due-drawn statement. According to him, the due-drawn statement has not been prepared based on Annexure P5, the 2nd MACP granted from July 2016 is not reflected in the statement, the basic pay of July 2016 is incorrect. Increment accrued to him in July 2016 is not shown. Similarly, in July 2026, he has become entitled for the 3rd MACP which has also not been granted. In short, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the stand taken by the 4th respondent in the reply statement is totally contrary to the decision rendered by the Tribunal, which has become final. Such a stand is against Annexure P5 order issued by the respondents themselves". We find that from Annexure P5, the 2nd MACP was granted with effect from 01.07.2016 in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix 44,900/ - 1,42,400/-, thereby his first ACP has been protected. However, in paragraph 6 of the reply statement filed in answer to the objection filed to the compliance report, it is stated that the Area Accounts, Navy, Kochi had observed that the 2nd MACP granted/amended with effect from 01.07.2016 is not in accordance with paragraph 9 read with paragraph 23 of Annexure-I of DoPT OM dated 22.10.2019 with reference to the regular service criteria of the petitioner. We are convinced that the respondent no. 2, to delay the implementation of the order, specifically Accounts department is raking up one issue after another. We feel that the order needs to be implemented in stricto sensu. Accordingly, we are inclined to grant time to the respondents to implement the order in full and report full compliance by 11.12.2026, failing which, concerned Officers, including the Area Accounts Officer, will be called upon to remain present before the Tribunal and to answer their stand. Post on 11.12.2026, as last chance. V RAMA MATHEW MEMBER (A) JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MEMBER (J) Sandra M ( )

Case No C.P./44/2019 Ernakulam Bench List In: Main causelist Item No. 10 Generated by Sherin A.X CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench on 11/11/2026

2026.11.12 09:08:36 +05'30' 2024.3.0 A X Sherin