Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
GD Bharat Singh Bist – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 p
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.
The court affirmed the entitlement for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, directing consideration based on existing Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
The court established that previous judgments should guide the consideration of financial claims under the MACP Scheme, emphasizing timely responses to petitioners' pleas.
Court directed the consideration of financial upgradation claims under MACP based on established precedents, affirming no interim stay from the Supreme Court.
The court directed that petitioners' claims for financial benefits be considered in accordance with precedent, emphasizing consistency in judicial outcomes.
The court mandated a response from the respondents regarding financial upgradation claims in line with precedent, emphasizing compliance with established legal rulings.
Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.
Court held that petitioners are entitled to consideration for financial upgradation based on precedent judgments, affirming the application of similar treatment for analogous cases.
The court upheld previous rulings on financial upgradation claims, directing prompt consideration without Supreme Court stay.
Judicial adherence to established precedents is essential when no challenges exist in higher courts, mandating timely consideration of claims under statutory schemes.
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
