Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Ram Chander (EX HC GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek relief based on prior orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. notice is accepted by the respondents. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. petitioners claim benefits under macp scheme. (Para 4) |
| 4. court directs consideration based on existing precedents. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petitions disposed with directions. (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 mention that the petitioners have pref
The court directed that petitioners' claims for financial benefits be considered in accordance with precedent, emphasizing consistency in judicial outcomes.
Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.
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.
Courts must consider claims for financial upgradation under judicial precedents unless higher courts issue conflicting orders.
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.
Judicial consistency mandates that without a Supreme Court stay, prior rulings must guide the consideration of claims under the MACP Scheme.
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
