MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Chandra Bhawan Pandethrough: Mr Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate Y And Ors – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - Present writ petition has been filed seeking a number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a similar order as passed by a Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 dated 30th May, 2019 as well as WP(C) No. 12811 of 2019 decided on 06th December 2019 be passed in the present writ petitions. He clarifies that neither the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 nor the judgments referred to in the said order have been challenged before the Supreme Court by the respondents.
2. Issue notice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. He, however, candidly states that there is no stay in the said Special Leave Petitions.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions to primarily seek a mandamus to the respondents to grant the benefit of the First and Second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme with effect from completion of 12 years and 24 years and the third MACP on completion of 30 y
The main legal point established is the reliance on precedent judgments and the absence of a stay in Special Leave Petitions influencing the court's decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation in accordance with specific judgments.
The court applied the principle of mandamus and relied on relevant judgments to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation.
Court upheld petitioners' claims for financial upgradations under ACP scheme based on prior case law, emphasizing the need for timely consideration within twelve weeks.
Court mandates adherence to judicial precedents in evaluating financial upgradation claims under ACP and MACP schemes, emphasizing timely resolution.
The court's decision was influenced by specific Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments on financial upgradation benefits under the ACP scheme.
Judicial precedents must be adhered to when no higher court stay exists, ensuring consistency in administrative benefits under financial upgradation schemes.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of specific judgments in the context of financial upgradation under the ACP scheme.
The court's decision was based on the specific judgments cited by the petitioner and the absence of any interim order from the Supreme Court in similar matters.
Petitioners are entitled to financial benefits under ACP and MACP schemes based on independent assessments of previous judicial decisions, reinforcing the duty of administrative bodies to act within ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.