Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Kundan Uniyal - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 1824 of 2021 with W.P. (C) 1826 of 2021 and W.P. (C) 1827 of 2021 and W.P. (C) 1829 of 2021
Decided On : 11-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions disposed with directions given. (Para 1 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioners seek financial upgradation benefits. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court directs consideration of claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 5263/2021 in W.P. (C) 1824/2021
CM APPL. 5264/2021 in W.P. (C) 1826/2021
CM APPL. 5265/2021 in W.P. (C) 1827/2021
CM APPL. 5267/2021 in W.P. (C) 1829/2021
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 1824/2021
W.P. (C) 1826/2021
W.P. (C) 1827/2021
W.P. (C) 1829/2021
1. 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 stands 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.
The court directed respondents to consider petitioners' claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on prior judgments, asserting the importance of adhering to established legal prin....
The principle of mandamus was applied to compel the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation based on relevant court judgments.
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.
The court directed that petitioners' claims for financial benefits be considered in accordance with precedent, emphasizing consistency in judicial outcomes.
Court directed the consideration of financial upgradation claims under MACP based on established precedents, affirming no interim stay from the Supreme Court.
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 mandated a response from the respondents regarding financial upgradation claims in line with precedent, emphasizing compliance with established legal rulings.
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
