Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Jagdish Prasad (Ex. HC/GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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
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 directed that petitioners' claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme be considered within twelve weeks, consistent with previous judgments and without any stays by the Supreme ....
Courts must consider claims for financial upgradation under judicial precedents unless higher courts issue conflicting orders.
Financial benefits under the MACP Scheme must be granted as per existing legal precedents when no Supreme Court stay exists.
Judicial adherence to established precedents is essential when no challenges exist in higher courts, mandating timely consideration of claims under statutory schemes.
The court upheld previous rulings on financial upgradation claims, directing prompt consideration without Supreme Court stay.
Petitioners entitled to second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on prior judgments without any pending Supreme Court stay.
The court directed that petitioners' claims for financial benefits be considered in accordance with precedent, emphasizing consistency in judicial outcomes.
Precedents set by the Supreme Court and High Court regarding financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme must be adhered to, especially in the absence of any stay orders.
Judgment establishes the binding nature of precedent judgments relating to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, mandating timely consideration by the respondents.
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
