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.
Mahesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1718 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4961 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1721 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4967 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1748 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5056 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1749 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5057 of 2021, + W.P. (C) 1750 of 2021 & CM Appl. 5058 of 2021, W.P. (C) 1754 of 2
Decided On : 10-02-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Petitioners sought a mandamus for second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme - The claim is supported by Supreme Court decision - Court directed consideration of petitioners' claims similar to previous orders. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) Reliance on precedent - The court emphasized that the absence of stay in similar Supreme Court matters allows disposition of current petitions based upon similar grounds. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, invoking the Supreme Court ruling and a previous Division Bench decision on similar matters.

Findings of Court:
The petitions were disposed of with directions for the respondents to consider the claims based on established decisions, including a time frame for response.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the entitlement for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and the relevance of previous judgments supporting such claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that similar orders should guide the disposition of the current petitions due to no stay from higher courts, reinforcing the significance of following precedents.

Result: Present writ petitions disposed of.

Table of Content
1. video conferencing for hearing petitions. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court orders consideration of claims based on precedent. (Para 3 , 6)
3. petitioners seeking financial upgradation benefits. (Para 4 , 5)
4. the petitions disposed 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