Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Anil Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide this petition, petitioners are praying as under:
"(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent DG BSF, to grant the benefits of the MACP scheme in favour of 58 petitioners, reckoning from the date they reported to BRT as the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Review Petition No.222 of 2019 filed in W.P (C): 7011/2015 in the title of Bablu Mallick & ANR on 11.10.2019 (Annexure-P4) in time bound manner.
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction thereby directing the respondent DG BSF to grant the arrears and other related benefits to the petitioners with the interest of 12% as per the settled law."
2. In view of issue(s) raised in this petition, we hereby dispose of present petition by directing the respondents to treat the present petition as representation on behalf of petitioners and decide the same within eight weeks. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week thereafter with a speaking and rationale order.
3. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
4. Needless to say, if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision of the respond
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 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 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.
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 court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations and the option for petitioners to challenge decisions if still aggrieved.
The court emphasizes the duty of public authorities to respond timely to representations made by employees seeking benefits under service rules.
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
