Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Balbir Singh (ASI GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 petition
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 ....
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....
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.
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.
Judicial adherence to established precedents is essential when no challenges exist in higher courts, mandating timely consideration of claims under statutory schemes.
Courts must consider claims for financial upgradation under judicial precedents unless higher courts issue conflicting orders.
The court directs respondents to process the petitioner's claim for financial upgradation based on existing legal precedents, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments without interim Supreme Court or....
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, referencing established precedents, due to absence of interim stays in similar c....
Petitioners entitled to second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on prior judgments without any pending Supreme Court stay.
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
