Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Tej Singh (EX HC GD) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's procedural observations (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's request for financial up-gradation (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. direction for timely decision on representation (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.3520/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1198/2022
1. The matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents for granting the benefit of second Financial up-gradation on completion of 24 years of service under the ACP Scheme in the Pay Scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 from 9th August, 1999 to 30th September, 1999, till the date, the petitioner had retired voluntarily from BSF and other consequential benefits including arrears of payment as per O.M. dated 09th August, 1999. Petitioner also seeks directions to the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioner which has been revised now as per hierarchy after granting the financial up-gradation under ACP Schemes from the due date of 09th August, 1999.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner's representation dated 07th December, 2021 is sti
The court mandates the Respondents to decide a pending representation concerning financial up-gradation and pay fixation within a stipulated timeframe, emphasizing procedural adherence.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the ACP Scheme and the reliance on a previous Supreme Court decision.
The applicant is entitled to ACP and MACP benefits despite prior promotions since non-beneficial promotions do not negate financial upgradation under the schemes.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents taking a final decision on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
Retrospective application of the MACP Scheme does not infringe upon the vested rights of employees under the ACP Scheme, as eligibility does not equate to entitlement.
The court's decision was based on the specific judgments cited by the petitioner and the absence of any interim order from the Supreme Court in similar matters.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of specific judgments in the context of financial upgradation under the ACP scheme.
The court's decision was influenced by specific Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments on financial upgradation benefits under the ACP scheme.
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
