SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Mahesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) (Writ Petition (Civil)) No. 1718 of 2021, 1721 of 2021, 1748 of 2021, 1749 of 2021, 1750 of 2021, 1753 of 2021, 1754 of 2021, 1762 of 2021, 1771 of 2021, 1773 of 2021, 1776 of 2021, 1777 of 2021, 1779 of 2021, 1784 of 2021, 1785 of 2021, 1787 of 2021, 1789 of 2021, 1791 of 2021, 1792 of 2021, 1793 of 2021; C.M. Appl (Civil Miscellaneous Application) No. 4961 of 2021, 4967 of 2021, 5056 of 2021, 5057 of 2021, 5058 of 2021, 5062 of 2021, 5063 of 2021, 5074 of 2021, 5090 of 2021, 5100 of 2021, 5107 of 2021, 5112 of 2021, 5119 of 2021, 5127 of 2021, 5128 of 2021, 5131 of 2021, 5133 of 2021, 5136 of 2021, 5137 of 2021, 5138 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Om Prakash Agarwal, Advocate, Rajesh Gogna, Advocate, Karan Chhibber, Advocate, Bharathi Raju, Advocate, Vinny Shangloo, Advocate, Rishab Relan, Advocate, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate, Vikram Jetly, Advocate, Arti Bansal, Advocate, Vinod Diwakar, Advocate, Vishal Kr Singh, Advocate, Anil Kaushik, Advocate, Amit Kr Dogra, Advocate, Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, Naginder Benipal, Advocate

The court can issue a mandamus to direct the consideration of claims based on specific judgments.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Financial Upgradation - The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for the benefit of the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in line with specific judgments and dispose of the representations positively within twelve weeks.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a mandamus to grant the benefit of the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and consequential benefits based on specific court judgments.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim in line with specific judgments and dispose of the representations positively within twelve weeks.

Issues: Mandamus for financial upgradation and consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on specific judgments and directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim and dispose of the representations positively within twelve weeks.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim in line with specific judgments and dispose of the representations positively within twelve weeks.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. - The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present batch of petitions have 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 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.

3. Issue notice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. Learned counsel for the respondents state that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. They, however, candidly state that there is no stay in the said Special Leave Petitions.

5. 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 second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200 w.e.f. 01st January, 2006 and wherever 20 years have been completed till the date the petitioners' voluntarily retired on 30th June, 2006 or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioners' claim is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr., Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016 along with other cases decided on 08th December, 2017. The petitioners also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No.3549/2018 decided on 01st May, 2019.

6. As admittedly there is no interim order passed by the Supreme Court in any of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Union of India in similar matters, we dispose of the present batch of writ petitions in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim in the light of the judgments in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. (supra) and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) as well as Union of India & Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 and to dispose of the representations of the petitioners positively within twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then the present order shall abide by the order(s) of the Apex Court.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the present batch of writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top