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

2023 Supreme(Del) 1278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Bijender Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Director-general – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5377 of 2023 & CM Appl. 21033 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sunil Kumar & Ms. Bharti Kandwal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Atul Krishna, Advocate, for the UoI.
Mr. Hemendra Singh, DC (Law) BSF, for the Respondent.

The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus, emphasizing the need for timely decisions on representations made by petitioners.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Assured Career Progression Scheme - The court directed the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioners' representation within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought various reliefs related to the Assured Career Progression Scheme, and had already made a representation to the respondent, but no decision had been taken.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioners' representation within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Issues: The main issue was the delay in the respondent's decision on the petitioners' representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioners' representation within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to take a final decision on the petitioners' representation within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs:

    "a.) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Direction/Order directing the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the benefit of the first Assured Career Progression ('ACP') Scheme with effect from October, 1999, when the Petitioner had actually completed 12 years of service instead of 30th December, 2000 or till the date of promotion as Head Constable;

    b.) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Direction/Order directing the Respondents to grant the benefit of the 2nct MACP should be granted with effect from October, 2007 (instead of 1st September, 2008), when the Petitioner completed 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 respondent to fix the pay of petitioners/retired employees and admissible pay scale as per hierarchy after granting financial upgradation under MACP from their respective due dates in the pay scale of SI with admissible grade pay;

    d.) To direct the respondent to issue revised pension order paying arrears of pension and the arrears of pay, accordingly on the interest @12%p.a. from the due date;

    e.) provide relief to all retirees/employees/members of B.S.F. in accordance with the Judgement of this Hon'ble Court dated 01/05/2019 in the case Sunil Kumar Tyagi versus Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 3549/2018 and Subhas Chander & Ors. vs UOI, W.P.(C) NO. 929/2023 and without discrimination under the Scheme;

    f.) direct the Respondents to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Court within time frame to be indicated to this Hon'ble Court keeping in view the old age of the retirees."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the reliefs sought in the present petition, the petitioners have already made the Representation dated 10.01.2023, however, till date, no decision from the respondent has been taken.

3. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondent to take a final decision on the Representation dated 10.01.2023 of the petitioners within eight weeks from today.

4. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioners in writing within one week thereafter.

5. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.

6. Needless to state that if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the respondent, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

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