Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Gopal Singh (EX HC GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for similar order based on prior judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. notice issued; no stay on lower court's proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioners seek financial upgradation benefits. (Para 4) |
| 4. directions for consideration of the petitioners' claims. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petitions disposed with directions to respondents. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--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.
2. Issue notice.
3. 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.
4. It is pertinent to men
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.
Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.
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.
Court directed the consideration of financial upgradation claims under MACP based on established precedents, affirming no interim stay from the Supreme Court.
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 mandates financial authorities to consider employee claims for upgradation based on previous court judgments, reinforcing the principle of judicial consistency.
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.
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
