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.
Hikmat Singh (EX HC GD) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1301 of 2022 & CM Appl. 3789 of 2022
Decided On : 21-01-2022




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 cases.

Headnote:(A) Writ Petition and Administrative Law;

(B) MACP Scheme - Grant of second financial upgradation - The petitioner sought a mandamus for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme based on precedents from prior Supreme Court and High Court judgments, emphasizing the lack of stay on similar matters. (Paras 1, 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition for the benefit of the MACP Scheme w.e.f. 01st January, 2006, following his voluntary retirement. The claim was substantiated by case law.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to evaluate the petitioner’s claim based on established precedents and dispose of his representation positively within twelve weeks.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner is entitled to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and the relevance of previous case law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court accepted the lack of interim orders in similar cases and maintained existing judicial directions, reinforcing the need for timely evaluation.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions.

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 Petitions.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has 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 petitioner voluntarily retired on 30th June, 2006 or the dates mentioned in the prayer clause along with consequential benefits including arrears. The petitioner 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 petitioner 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 writ petition in similar terms as passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's 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 t o dispose of the representation of the petitioner 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 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