Disposed

Suchendra Singh, Ex Insp/Gd (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2016W.P.(C)/7879/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a retired police constable sought arrears of pay and pension benefits under ACP and MACP schemes. The court disposed of the matter by directing respondents to treat the petition as a representation and pass a detailed speaking order within 12 weeks. The court declined to decide the merits ex-parte.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondents to consider the petition as a representation and pass a detailed speaking order within 12 weeks regarding ACP/MACP benefits eligibility.

Suchendra Singh, Ex Insp/Gd (Retd) Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

- W.P.(C) 7879/2016

¶3

SUCHENDRA SINGH, EX INSP/GD (RETD) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal & Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC along with Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate for UOI.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶8

O R D E R % 06.09.2016

¶9

CM No. 32616/2016 (Exemption)

¶10

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

The application stands disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 7879/2016

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶14

“(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or order or directions to the concerned respondent for granting the benefit of 1^st financial upgradation under ACP Scheme to the petitioner with effect W.P.(C) 7879/2016 page 1 of 3

¶15

from 09.08.1999 in the scale of Head Constable and other consequential benefits including arrears of payment being accrued thereto as per O.M. dated 09.08.1999.

¶16

(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or order or directions to the concerned respondent for granting the benefit of 2^nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme from 23.06.2001 in the pay scale of Sub Inspector on completion of 24 years of service and also eligible for consequential benefits being accrued thereto

¶17

(c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ or order or directions to the concerned respondent for granting the benefit of third financial upgradation under MACP Scheme from 01.09.2008 in the pay in the Pay Band-2 Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- (this amount was already mentioned in their PPO orders)

¶18

(d) issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or direction to the concerned respondents for issuing the directions to the Pension Payment Authority (Respondents No. 4 & 5) for revising pension amount as per the entitlement incorporated above in the PPO already issued on 19.10.2015 & 05.11.2015 by respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively.

¶19

(e) The respondents may be directed to release the arrears and for that purpose this Hon’ble Court may like to fix the particular period for compliance of the order;

¶20

(f) Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

¶21

W.P.(C) 7879/2016

¶22

page 2 of 3

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice states that the respondents have issued an order dated 05.05.2015, wherein, a decision has been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) to grant ACP benefits with effect from the due date provided that the concerned officials must have successfully undergone the pre-promotional Senior Under Officer Cadre Course (SUOCC) course in the first attempt or the official has retired before being detailed for such course. She states as this aspect needs to be ascertained in the case of the petitioner, the respondents shall consider this writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and pass a detailed and speaking order by considering the order dated 05.05.2015 within a period of 12 weeks’ time. The learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable to this suggestion made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the writ petition as a representation and pass a detailed and speaking order taking into consideration the order dated 05.05.2015 within a period of 12 weeks. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by an order to be passed by the respondents, he will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶25

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶26

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶27

SEPTEMBER 06, 2016 rs

¶28

W.P.(C) 7879/2016 page 3 of 3

Suchendra Singh, Ex Insp/Gd (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suchendra Singh, Ex Insp/Gd (Retd) v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ameet Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kamlesh Shukla & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Hasham Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

New Delhi Television Limited Vs Comm. of Sales Tax & Others

Hari Singh Saini Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Simran Chaudri and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner (South) and Ors.

Balkar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gulshan Lal Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ameet Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Havildar Vijay Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

G S Uban Vs the Secretary Intergrated Headquarter of Ministry of Defence and Ors.

G.D. Naganithyanand Dasari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Balkar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Santosh Kumar Pandey (Hc) Vs Union of India and Ors.