Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Kripa Shankar Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 presen
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....
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
