IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Ram Swaroop (EX HC GD) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10902 of 2021 & C.M. No. 33612 of 2021, W.P.(C) 10961 of 2021 & C.M. No. 33797 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 11012 of 2021 & C.M. No. 33948 of 2021
Decided On : 28-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek financial upgradation under macp. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. court issues notice to the respondents. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. writ petitions disposed with specified directions. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. 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.
3. Issue notice.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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 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. 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 batch of writ petitions along with pending applications stand disposed of.
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.
Petitioners entitled to second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on prior judgments without any pending Supreme Court stay.
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.
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....
Courts must consider claims for financial upgradation under judicial precedents unless higher courts issue conflicting orders.
Precedent judgments must be followed unless stayed by higher courts; respondents directed to consider claims for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme within specified timelines.
The court affirmed the entitlement for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, directing consideration based on existing Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing adherence to judicial precedents.
The court established that previous judgments should guide the consideration of financial claims under the MACP Scheme, emphasizing timely responses to petitioners' pleas.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.