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.
Subhash Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 8052 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2021




In the absence of interim orders from higher courts, claims for financial benefits under schemes must be considered in line with established judicial precedents.

Headnote:(A) The Constitution of India - Rights under Article 226 - Writ petition for mandamus regarding financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme - Petitioner sought similar relief as granted in earlier cases without challenge to prior judgments by the respondents - Directions issued to consider the claim based on precedent cases - No stay in pending related appeals. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) Judicial discipline - When prior authorizations from higher courts are not contested, further similar claims should be processed in accordance with those precedents

(C) The Supreme Court rulings and earlier decisions guide the benefits under the MACP Scheme with the requirement to dispose of claims positively. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought benefit under the MACP Scheme for financial upgradation, citing previous judgments including Union of India vs. Balbir Singh Turn - No interim stays were issued by the Supreme Court concerning similar petitions.

Findings of Court:
The writ petition was disposed of with instructions to respond to the petitioner’s claim as per applicable precedents within twelve weeks.

Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the petitioner's claim for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme could be evaluated in accordance with established precedents despite pending appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in the absence of interim orders from higher courts on similar matters, claims should ideally be resolved based on existing legal precedents.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. no interim order by supreme court. (Para 1 , 4)
2. petitioner's claim for financial upgradation under macp. (Para 2 , 5)
3. direction for consideration of petitioner’s claim. (Para 3 , 6)
4. writ petition disposed of. (Para 7 , 8)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral):--This petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking a number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

3. Issue notice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. He states that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the applications for condonation of delay and special leave petitions. He, however, candidly states that there is no stay in the said special leave petitions.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has 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 petitioner's voluntarily retired on 30th June, 2006 or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioner's 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 petitioner 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.

6. 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 petitioner's 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 as well as verify the facts and to dispose of the representations of the petitioner 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.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

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