Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Rakesh Chandra (ASI GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present petition has been filed seeking a number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petition. 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 states that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and special leave petitions. He, however, candidly states that there is no stay in the said special leave petitions.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition 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 petitioner volun
Judicial respect for prior rulings guides the grant of financial benefits under government schemes, reinforcing adherence to established judicial precedent and timely action on petitions.
The court upheld the need for administrative compliance with prior judicial decisions regarding financial upgradation claims, directing timely consideration without interim orders from higher courts.
The court mandated the consideration of petitioners' claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments and timelines for decisions.
The court affirmed the necessity for respondents to consider financial upgradation claims under the MACP Scheme, contingent on prior decisions, within a specified time frame.
The court affirmed that financial benefits under the MACP Scheme should be granted based on precedent rulings, mandating prompt review of claims without Supreme Court interim orders.
Judicial consistency mandates that without a Supreme Court stay, prior rulings must guide the consideration of claims under the MACP Scheme.
In the absence of interim orders from higher courts, claims for financial benefits under schemes must be considered in line with established judicial precedents.
Court directed responsive action on financial upgradation under MACP Scheme as specified in prior judgments, reinforcing adherence to established legal precedents.
Court directed respondents to consider financial upgradation claims under the MACP Scheme in line with established precedents, affirming the absence of interim orders against similar claims.
Court held that petitioners are entitled to consideration for financial upgradation based on precedent judgments, affirming the application of similar treatment for analogous cases.
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
