Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Anil Kumar (SI GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking financial upgradation benefits (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. direction for consideration of claims (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. no stay in related cases (Para 3) |
| 4. order disposal and directions given (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
W.P. (C) 971/2021
1. Present petition has been filed seeking a number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a similar order as passed by a Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 dated 30th May, 2019 as well as WP(C) No. 12811 of 2019 decided on 06th December, 2019 be passed in the present writ petition. 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.
2. Issue notice.
3. 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.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has preferred the present writ
Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's financial upgradation claims in light of previous judgments, stressing the need for consistency and timely processing.
Court mandates adherence to judicial precedents in evaluating financial upgradation claims under ACP and MACP schemes, emphasizing timely resolution.
Court upheld petitioners' claims for financial upgradations under ACP scheme based on prior case law, emphasizing the need for timely consideration within twelve weeks.
The court affirmed the necessity for authorities to grant financial upgrades based on established judicial precedents, ensuring fairness in service benefits.
The court's decision was influenced by specific Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments on financial upgradation benefits under the ACP scheme.
The court applied the principle of mandamus and relied on relevant judgments to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation.
Judicial precedents must be adhered to when no higher court stay exists, ensuring consistency in administrative benefits under financial upgradation schemes.
The court's decision was based on the specific judgments cited by the petitioner and the absence of any interim order from the Supreme Court in similar matters.
Court mandated consideration of financial upgradation claims based on established precedents, directing timely response to the petitioner.
The main legal point established is the reliance on precedent judgments and the absence of a stay in Special Leave Petitions influencing the court's decision.
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
