Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Hanuman Prasad (EX HC GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petitions for mandamus seeking benefits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notifications of acceptance and procedural matters. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. claim based on previous supreme court decisions. (Para 5) |
| 4. direction for respondents to review claims. (Para 6) |
| 5. disposal of petitions 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 pray 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 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 Lea
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.
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.
The court mandated a response from the respondents regarding financial upgradation claims in line with precedent, emphasizing compliance with established legal rulings.
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 mandates financial authorities to consider employee claims for upgradation based on previous court judgments, reinforcing the principle of judicial consistency.
The court upheld previous rulings on financial upgradation claims, directing prompt consideration without Supreme Court stay.
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
