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.
Balbir Singh (ASI GD) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13835 of 2021 & CM Appl. 43663 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2021




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 Court.

Headnote:(A) The Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition concerning financial upgradation under MACP Scheme - Petitioners seek a mandamus for second financial upgradation and consequential benefits reflecting upon Supreme Court decisions in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. and Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr. - Court directs consideration of the petitioners' claims within twelve weeks. (Paras 4, 5)

(B) Judicial Precedent - Similarity of cases - Court acknowledges relevance of past judgments while disposing of the writ petition and emphasizes adherence to prior directives. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on Supreme Court judgments and sought consequential benefits relating to their voluntary retirement prior to 30th June, 2006. The prior decision of the Division Bench was referenced without challenge to the apex court.

Findings of Court:
The petition is disposed of with a directive to respondents to consider the claims positively as previously determined in related cases.

Issues: The primary issue addressed involves whether petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the MACP Scheme based on existing Supreme Court rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since there was no interim stay on similar proceedings by the Supreme Court, the present case should be treated in alignment with previous decisions and directives, mandating timely consideration of claims.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioners request similar order as prior judgment. (Para 1)
2. notice issued; respondents accept the notice. (Para 2 , 3)
3. claim for financial upgradation under macp scheme. (Para 4)
4. court directs consideration of claims as per previous judgments. (Para 5 , 6)
5. writ petition disposed with specific directions. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has 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.

2. Issue notice.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. He states that in similar matters notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the application for condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. He, however, candidly states 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 petition 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on 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 the Review Petition filed 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 writ petition 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) passed by the Apex Court.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition along with pending application stands 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