Delhi High Court
Raj Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 January, 2021
$~Suppl.-2, 12 to 14 & 41 to 43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
2
+ W.P. (C) 8840/2020, CM APPL. 28408/2020
RAJ PAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija with Mr.Ankit
Tyagi, Advocates.
12
+ W.P. (C) 8003/2020
NARENDER SINGH TYAGI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. D.S. Mahendru, Senior Panel
counsel for respondent.
13
+ W.P. (C) 8004/2020
RANJIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sreemithun with Mr.Shoumendu
Mukherji, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 8840/2020 and connected matters Page 1 of 5
14
+ W.P. (C) 9605/2020
MANWAR HUSSAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh ,CGSC with
Mr.Abhishek Khanna, Advocate.
41
+ W.P. (C) 691/2021, CM APPL.1694/2021
RAJ SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naman Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with
Ms.Biji Rajesh and Mr.Jitendra
Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
42
+ W.P. (C) 715/2021, CM APPL.1777/2021
ASI GD GANESH SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. D.S. Mahendru, Senior Panel
counsel for respondent.
43
+ W.P. (C) 717/2021, CM APPL.1778/2021
KULDEEP RAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naman Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
W.P.(C) 8840/2020 and connected matters Page 2 of 5
Through: Mr.Kavindra Gill, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 18th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
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 pet itioners pray t hat a sim ilar
order as passed by a Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 dat ed 30 th
May, 2019 as well as WP(C) No. 12811 of 2019 decided on 06th Decem ber
2019 be passed in the present writ petitions. He clarifies t hat n either t he
judgment and order dated 30th May, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 n or t he
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 cou nsel
for the respondents state that in similar matters, notices have been issu ed by
the Supreme Court in the condonation of delay and special leave pet itions.
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 t o t he respondents t o
grant the benefit of the First and Second fin ancial u pgradation u nder t he
ACP scheme with effect from completion of 12 years and 24 years an d t h e
third MACP on completion of 30 year of service. It is claimed that wherever
the second Financial upgradation is granted under t he second MACP, t he
same hall be granted 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 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 Cou rt in Sunil
Kumar Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (C) No.3549/2018 decided
on 01st May, 2019, Jaswant Singh v. Union of India., WP(C) No. 22 of
2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal Singh v. Union of India
decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No. 5539/2015 and Indian Ex-Bordermen
Movement and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 03.02.2020 in
WP(C) No. 7447/2019.
6. As admittedly there is no interim order passed by the Supreme Cou rt
in any of the special leave petitions filed by the Un ion of In dia in sim ilar
matters, we dispose of the present batch of writ petitions in similar t erms as
passed in W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 i.e. a direction to the respondents to
consider the petitioners' claim in the ligh t of t h e ju dgments in Union of
India and Ors. Vs. Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. (supra) and Sunil Kumar
Tyagi vs. Union of India & Anr (supra) , Union of India & Ors. vs. M.V.
Mohanan Nair, (2020) 5 SCC 421 as well as Jaswant Singh v. Union of
India., WP(C) No. 22 of 2015 decided on 05.01.2015 as well as Jai Pal
Singh v. Union of India decided on 06.09.2013 in WP(C) No. 5539/2015
and Indian Ex-Bordermen Movement and Ors v. Union of India and Ors.
decided on 03.02.2020 in WP(C) No. 7447/2019 and to dispose of the
representations of the petitioners positively within twelve weeks from today.
It is clarified that in the event the Supreme Cou rt varies or set asides t h e
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 alon g
with pending applications stand 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
JANUARY 18, 2021
KA
