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.
Bhagwan Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1513 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4335 of 2021, with W.P. (C) 1514 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4336 of 2021 and W.P. (C) 1515 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4337 of 2021
Decided On : 05-02-2021




Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus to grant financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme - Petitioners sought second financial upgradation in Pay Band Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs.4200 based on Supreme Court's decision and previous judgments. Court directs consideration of claims based on precedent judgments within twelve weeks. (Paras 4-6)

(B) Judicial Precedent - A Division Bench's previous judgment not challenged by respondents and no stay from the Supreme Court, indicating legal enforceability of prior decisions. (Paras 1-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought a mandamus to the respondents for financial benefits post-retirement based on prior judgments affirming their claim. The Court noted no stay from higher courts on similar matters.

Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the petitions with directions for timely consideration of claims in light of earlier judgments, ensuring adherence to established legal principles within a defined timeframe.

Issues: The core issues revolved around the enforceability of a precedent judgment and the petitioners' entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Precedent judgments were upheld as binding, and the court mandated consideration of the claims following similar legal principles due to the absence of any stay on previous orders in the matter.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. mandamus for financial upgradation benefits. (Para 1 , 4)
2. acceptance of notice and pending issues. (Para 2 , 3)
3. order to consider claims based on precedent. (Para 5)
4. disposition of writ petitions. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--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.

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 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.

5. 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.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the present batch of writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.

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