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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Virender Singh (CT GD ) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1295 of 2021, CM Appl. 3626 of 2021
Decided On : 02-02-2021




Court directed respondents to consider financial upgradation claims under the MACP Scheme in line with established precedents, affirming the absence of interim orders against similar claims.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - MACP Scheme - Petition seeking a mandamus for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on the decision in Union of India vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. - Court disposed of petition directing consideration of claim based on past judgments. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) Judicial Precedent - Reliance on previous decisions - The current petition is aligned with precedents established in earlier rulings where claims for similar benefits were recognized, and a unified direction was issued for consideration. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme after voluntary retirement, claiming entitlement based on Supreme Court rulings and past judgments from the High Court, with no interim orders in pending matters.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the department to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with established judgments, confirming the adherence to previous rulings on similar cases.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to financial benefits under the MACP Scheme based on precedent cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that as there was no interim order against recognized claims in similar prior cases, the petitioner’s entitlement should be reassessed in that context.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. writ petition seeks financial upgradation benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. notice issued; respondents accept. (Para 3 , 4)
3. direction to consider petitioner's claim. (Para 6)
4. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. 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 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.

3. Issue notice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. He, however, candidly states that there is no stay in the said special leave petitions.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition 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 petitioner's voluntarily retired on 30th June, 2006 or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioner's 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 petitioner also places 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 writ petition in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's 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 petitioner 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 writ petition along with pending application 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
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