Si Gd Som Raj vs Uoi And Other
2021 Latest Caselaw 471 Del

$~Suppl.-32 to 35
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P. (C) 1824/2021
       EX INSP MIN KUNDAN UNIYAL .....Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Advocate
                                Versus
        UOI AND OTHER                       .....Respondents
                    Through:                Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, SPC with
                                            Mr. Himanshu Pathak, GP for
                                            UOI.
                                            Mr. Dilbag Singh, Sr. CGC for
                                            UOI.

                                         WITH
+      W.P. (C) 1826/2021
       SI GD SOM RAJ                                          .....Petitioner
                                Through:    Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Advocate
                                Versus
         UOI AND OTHER                                       .....Respondents
                     Through:              Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Mr.
                                           Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,
                                           Advocates
                                         AND
+      W.P. (C) 1827/2021
       EX HC GD HARKRISHAN LAL                 .....Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Advocate
                                Versus
        UOI AND OTHER                                        .....Respondents
                    Through:                Mr. Anil Kumar Kaushik, CGSC
                                            with Mr. Amit Dogra, Advocates
                                            for UOI.


W.P. (C) 1824/2021 & connected matters                                 Page 1 of 4
 +      W.P. (C) 1829/2021
       SI GD LOK BAHADUR CHAND                  .....Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Advocate
                                Versus
        UOI AND OTHER                       .....Respondents
                    Through:                Ms. Riya Dhingra, Advocate for
                                            Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R-1
                                            and 2.
                                            Ms. Suman Chauhan with Mr.
                                            Manan N., Proxy Counsel for
                                            respondents with SI/GD Lok
                                            Bahadur Chand.
%                                        Date of Decision: 11th February, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
              JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

CM APPL. 5263/2021 in W.P. (C) 1824/2021 CM APPL. 5264/2021 in W.P. (C) 1826/2021 CM APPL. 5265/2021 in W.P. (C) 1827/2021 CM APPL. 5267/2021 in W.P. (C) 1829/2021 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P. (C) 1824/2021 W.P. (C) 1826/2021 W.P. (C) 1827/2021 W.P. (C) 1829/2021

1. The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present batch of petitions have 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 dated 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.

3. Issue notice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents accept notice. Learned counsel for the respondents state that in similar matters, notices have been issued by the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and Special Leave Petitions. They, however, candidly state that there is no stay in the said Special Leave Petitions.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions 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. The petitioners 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.

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 batch of writ petitions 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. It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set asides the order passed by the Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) 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 batch of writ petitions stands disposed of.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

ASHA MENON, J FEBRUARY 11, 2021 rn