https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287302 An employee was held entitled to first and second ACP benefits from the claimed earlier dates because the departmental examination was not held in time due to the employer's delay, and that default could not be used to deny the benefit. The employee cleared the examination at the first available opportunity, so the anti-stagnation scheme had to operate in his favour. Recovery of alleged excess payment made before 29.6.2003 was also found unsustainable, since it depended on the same wrongful denial and recovery from an employee retired by then was impermissible. The ACP entitlement was restored and the recovery direction was set aside. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2020 10:17:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287302 An employee was held entitled to first and second ACP benefits from the claimed earlier dates because the departmental examination was not held in time due to the employer's delay, and that default could not be used to deny the benefit. The employee cleared the examination at the first available opportunity, so the anti-stagnation scheme had to operate in his favour. Recovery of alleged excess payment made before 29.6.2003 was also found unsustainable, since it depended on the same wrongful denial and recovery from an employee retired by then was impermissible. The ACP entitlement was restored and the recovery direction was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287302