Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Shiv Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India (Ex Hc/Gd) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural initiation and notice issuance (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. acceptance of notice and absence of stay in similar cases (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioners' claims based on supreme court precedents (Para 4) |
| 4. direction for positive consideration of claims (Para 5) |
| 5. disposal of writ petitions with directives (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--Present 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 application for 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 p
Courts must consider claims for financial upgradation under judicial precedents unless higher courts issue conflicting orders.
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 mandated consideration of financial upgradation claims under the MACP Scheme based on established precedents, emphasizing timely responses while remaining subject to potential Supreme Court....
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.
Judicial adherence to established precedents is essential when no challenges exist in higher courts, mandating timely consideration of claims under statutory schemes.
Financial benefits under the MACP Scheme must be granted as per existing legal precedents when no Supreme Court stay exists.
The court upheld previous rulings on financial upgradation claims, directing prompt consideration without Supreme Court stay.
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
