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.
Babu Lal (EX HC GD) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15191 of 2021 & CM Appl. 47852 of 2021, W.P.(C) 15216 of 2021 & CM Appl. 47905 of 2021, W.P.(C) 15217 of 2021 & CM Appl. 47906 of 2021, W.P.(C) 15219 of 2021 & CM Appl. 47909 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 44 of 2022 & CM Appl. 79 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2022




The court upheld previous rulings on financial upgradation claims, directing prompt consideration without Supreme Court stay.

Headnote:(A) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. - Supreme Court decision referenced - Second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme sought - Previous Division Bench judgment referenced - No challenge to previous orders before Supreme Court. (Paras 2-6)

(B) Judicial notice - Lack of interim order from the Supreme Court in related matters noted. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought mandamus for second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, relying on past Supreme Court decisions and emphasizing a lack of suspension of those orders.

Findings of Court:
The writ petitions are directed to be considered as per earlier judgments, with representations to be disposed of within twelve weeks.

Issues: The main issue revolved around granting benefits under the MACP Scheme in light of previous court decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed that previous judgments must be followed, and without an interim order from the Supreme Court, claims must be considered as per directives from the referenced cases.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. notice issued and acknowledgment of previous decisions (Para 1 , 4)
2. petitioners seek financial upgradation under macp (Para 2 , 5)
3. court directs consideration of petitioners' claims (Para 3 , 6)
4. writ petitions disposed with specific directions (Para 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 on 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 passed by a 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.

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