SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Kripa Shankar Rai - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3740 of 2021 & C.M. No. 11278 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2021




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.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Mandamus - The petitioners sought financial benefits under the MACP Scheme based on precedent rulings from the Supreme Court and previous judgments of the High Court. The request aligns with similar petitions and referenced decisions. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The case involved petitioners seeking the second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with arrears from January 1, 2006, based on prior Supreme Court rulings including Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. (2017) and a Division Bench order. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' claims in light of the referenced judgments, mandating a positive response within 12 weeks. This is contingent upon the Supreme Court's decisions regarding similar earlier cases. (Paras 5, 6)

Issues: The core issues centered on the petitioners' claim for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and the applicability of the previously cited Supreme Court rulings. (Paras 4, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the respondents to act on the petitioners’ claim as prescribed by the relevant judgments, while also acknowledging the potential impact of any Supreme Court rulings on the matter. (Paras 5)

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. seeking mandamus for financial upgradation under macp scheme (Para 1 , 4)
2. acceptance of notice in related matters and no stay issued (Para 2 , 3)
3. court directs consideration of claims based on supreme court rulings (Para 5)
4. writ petition disposed with directions (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has 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 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 accepts 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 petitioners have 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 petitioners' voluntarily retired on 30th June, 2006 or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioners' claim is based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr., Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016 along with other cases decided on 08th December, 2017. The petitioners also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No.3549/2018 decided on 01st May, 2019.

5. As admittedly there is no interim order passed by the Supreme Court in any of the special leave petitions filed by the Union of India in similar matters, we dispose of the present writ petition in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' claim in the light of the judgments in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. (supra) and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra) as well as Union of India & Ors. vs. M.V. Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 and to dispose of the representations of the petitioners positively within twelve weeks from today. It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr. (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then the present order shall abide by the order(s) of the Apex Court.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top