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.
GD Bharat Singh Bist - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1623 of 2021, CM Appl. 4666 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1634 of 2021, CM Appl. 4686 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1677 of 2021, CM Appl. 4775 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1678 of 2021, CM Appl. 4776 of 2021 and W.P. (C) 1680 of 2021, CM Appl. 4777 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021




Precedent judgments must be followed unless stayed by higher courts; respondents directed to consider claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme within specified timelines.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions seeking mandamus for benefit under MACP Scheme - Petitioners claimed entitlement to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on precedent judgments - Court directed respondents to consider claims in light of governing law. (Paras 5-6)

(B) Precedent - Authority of prior judgments - Court emphasized that since no stay is in effect by the Supreme Court on similar matters, precedent should govern the decision. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
A batch of writ petitions was filed by petitioners seeking financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme after voluntarily retiring. They based their claims on previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

Findings of Court:
The court disposed of the petitions with directions for the respondents to consider the claims based on the cited judgments within twelve weeks.

Issues: The core issue revolved around the petitioners' entitlement to financial benefits under the MACP Scheme according to previous judgments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that as no interim orders hindered the claims, the previous judgments should guide the current decision-making process for the petitioners’ requests.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. hearing of petitions via video conferencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners seek financial upgradation under macp scheme. (Para 4 , 5)
3. direction to consider petitioners' claims. (Para 6)
4. disposal of petitions with directions. (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
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