Court directed the consideration of financial upgradation claims under MACP based on established precedents, affirming no interim stay from the Supreme Court.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Financial Upgradation under MACP Scheme - The judgment orders consideration of petitioners' claims for financial upgradation and benefits based on precedents including Union of India & Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr. - Petitioners voluntarily retired and sought benefits for completed service before retirement. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) Jurisdictional Review - The absence of any interim stay from the Supreme Court in related matters permits the High Court to direct the consideration of claims based on established precedents. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitions were filed by individuals seeking a mandamus for financial upgradation benefits under the MACP Scheme as provided by prior judgments. They sought similar relief to that granted in earlier related cases without any pending Supreme Court stays.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider petitioners’ claims concerning financial upgradation within twelve weeks, aligning with previously established decisions.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to a second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on their retirement and the precedent set in prior judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of a Supreme Court interim stay allows for the lower court’s directives to be followed regarding claim consideration based on prior rulings.

Result: Petitions disposed of with a direction for consideration of claims.

Table of Content
1. requests for financial upgradation under macp. (Para 2 , 5)
2. respondents acknowledge the pendency of notices. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court directs consideration based on precedents. (Para 6)
4. disposal of writ petitions with directive. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--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