Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Hikmat Singh (EX HC GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks similar relief as past judgments. (Para 2) |
| 2. acknowledgment of notice and no stay by supreme court. (Para 4) |
| 3. claims based on previous supreme court rulings. (Para 5) |
| 4. court directs consideration of petitioner’s claim. (Para 6) |
| 5. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking a number of prayers. However, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petition. 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. Mr.Vinod Diwakar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 Pet
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....
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....
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.
Court directed responsive action on financial upgradation under MACP Scheme as specified in prior judgments, reinforcing adherence to established legal precedents.
Petitioners entitled to second financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on prior judgments without any pending Supreme Court stay.
Court held that petitioners are entitled to consideration for financial upgradation based on precedent judgments, affirming the application of similar treatment for analogous cases.
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.
In the absence of interim orders from higher courts, claims for financial benefits under schemes must be considered in line with established judicial precedents.
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
