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, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Jagdish Prasad (Ex. HC/GD) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 157 of 2020 with W.P.(C) 172 of 2020
Decided On : 25-10-2021




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 alterations.

Headnote:(A) Writ jurisdiction - Mandamus - MACP Scheme - The petitioners sought the benefit of second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme from the respondents, relying on decisions including Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India. (Para 4)

(B) Supreme Court - In the absence of interim orders in similar matters, the petitions were disposed directing consideration of claim based on precedents. (Para 5)

(C) Judicial Review - The Court provided a 12-week timeline for positive action on representations by respondents regarding upgradation and related benefits. (Para 5)

(D) Subject to Supreme Court decisions - The order is subject to variations by the Supreme Court concerning the Division Bench's earlier rulings. (Para 6)

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek financial upgradation under macp scheme. (Para 1 , 4)
2. court issues notice and accepts responses. (Para 2 , 3)
3. respondents to consider claims following specified judgments. (Para 5 , 6)
4. writ petitions disposed with directions. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ 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 accepts notice. She states that in similar matters notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the application for condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. She, however, candidly state 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 petitions 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. He emphasises that SLP (Civil) No. 35888/2019, Union of India Vs. Sunil Kumar Tyagi has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 15th November, 2019 and even a Review Petition against the said order has been dismissed on 27th July, 2021.

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 batch of writ petitions 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. In the event, the respondents ask for any clarification, the petitioners shall furnish the same within two weeks.

6. It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division Bench in the present petition 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 petitions along with pending applications stand 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