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
| 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.
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.
The court mandated the consideration of petitioners' claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments and timelines for decisions.
Judicial respect for prior rulings guides the grant of financial benefits under government schemes, reinforcing adherence to established judicial precedent and timely action on petitions.
Judicial consistency mandates that without a Supreme Court stay, prior rulings must guide the consideration of claims under the MACP Scheme.
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's decision was based on the principles of mandamus and the application of specific judgments to the petitioners' claim.
The court ruled that claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme must be evaluated in accordance with prior Supreme Court decisions, with a direction to address the claims positively.
Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.
The court's decision was influenced by the absence of any interim order from the Supreme Court in similar matters and the reliance on specific judgments to direct the respondents to consider the peti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.