Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Jagat Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek financial upgradation under macp scheme. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. court directs consideration of petitioners' claims based on past judgments. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. respondents acknowledge similar notices by the supreme court. (Para 4) |
| 4. case disposed with directions to respond to petitioners. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Both these petitions have 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 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. Mr. Nawal Kishor Jha, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 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 i
The court mandates financial authorities to consider employee claims for upgradation based on previous court judgments, reinforcing the principle of judicial consistency.
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 a response from the respondents regarding financial upgradation claims in line with precedent, emphasizing compliance with established legal rulings.
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.
The court upheld the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, directing timely consideration in accordance with prior judgments, absent any Supreme Court stay.
Judicial consistency mandates that without a Supreme Court stay, prior rulings must guide the consideration of claims under the MACP Scheme.
The court established that previous judgments should guide the consideration of financial claims under the MACP Scheme, emphasizing timely responses to petitioners' pleas.
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.
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
