Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Rajendra Singh Shekhawat & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 4936 of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Exemption - Writ Petition - The court allowed the exemption application with a direction to file requisite legible copies of documents and annexures within four weeks. The writ petition sought various benefits for the petitioner, and the court directed the respondents to take a final decision on the representation within eight weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various benefits including arrears of financial upgradation and revised pension order. The petitioner made a representation, but there was no response from the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to take a final decision on the representation within eight weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to arrears of financial upgradation and revised pension order, as well as the lack of response from the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation and communicate it within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to take a final decision on the representation within eight weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners, while allowing the exemption application and disposing of the petition.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
CM APPL.19073/2023 (exemption)
1. The application is allowed, with a direction to the applicant to file requisite legible copies of documents and annexures within four weeks.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4936/2023
3. The petitioner in his petition has made following prayers:
a) To direct the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of arrears of 1st Financial Upgradation in the ACP Scheme from the date of completion of their 12 years of service till the date of promotion as Head Constable.
b) To direct the respondents to grant the petitioners the benefit of 2nd MACP Upgradation on completion of 20 years of service in the pay band of 9300-34800 with grade pay of 4200, from the date of completion of 20 years of service.
c) To direct the respondents to fix the pay of petitioners in eligible and admissible pay scales as p er hierarchy after granting financial upgradation under MACP from their respective due dates in the pay scale of SI (Sub Inspector) with admissible grade pay.
d) To direct the respondents to issue revised pension order paying arrears of pension in cases of Petitioner Nos. 16 and 23 and the arrears of pay, accordingly on the interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date due.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that upon the relief sought in the present petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.02.2023, however, till date there is no response from the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take final decision on the representation mentioned above within eight weeks and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners with within one week thereafter.
6. Needless to say, if the petitioners still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents taking a final decision on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the ACP Scheme and the reliance on a previous Supreme Court decision.
The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations and the option for petitioners to challenge decisions if still aggrieved.
The court's decision was influenced by a previous decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same issue.
The court mandates the Respondents to decide a pending representation concerning financial up-gradation and pay fixation within a stipulated timeframe, emphasizing procedural adherence.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus, emphasizing the need for timely decisions on representations made by petitioners.
The court reaffirmed that under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, eligible employees are entitled to benefits from the date notified by the government, with rates and payment of arrears....
Quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned; failure to do so allows for judicial review and quashing.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
