Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Himmat Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioners are seeking directions to the respondent DG, BSF to grant them the benefits of the MACP scheme reckoning from the date they reported to BRT as the law laid down by this Court in Review Petition No.222 of 2019 filed in W.P. (C) 7011/2015 decided on 11.10.2019 in a time-bound manner; directions to the respondent DG, BSF to grant arrears and other benefits to the petitioners with the interest of 12% as per the settled law.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the issues(s) raised in the present petition has been fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Review Petition No.222 of 2019 filed in W.P. (C) 7011/2015 decided on 11.10.2019.
3. In view of above, we hereby dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to treat the present petition as representation filed on behalf of petitioners and decide the same in view of above-mentioned judgment passed by this Court within 8 weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter with a reasoned order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
5. Needless to say, if th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of a previous court judgment to determine the benefits under the MACP scheme for the petitioners.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus and the requirement for reasoned orders within a specified timeframe.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of timely decision-making by the respondent authority in matters related to the MACP scheme.
The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations and the option for petitioners to challenge decisions if still aggrieved.
The court's emphasis on the need for the respondents to consider the petition as a representation and provide a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
The main legal point established is the court's power to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and decide within a specified timeframe.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
Delay in filing represents an impediment to claim benefits under the Administrative Tribunal's Act despite changes in law.
The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the 2nd MACP scheme, impacted from a specific date, following an authoritative precedent.
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
