Dismissed

Ex. Hc/Gd Suraj Bhan v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jul 2018W.P.(C)/7026/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed multiple writ petitions concerning MACP scheme benefits, holding that notices issued by counsel without specifying the client name were invalid. Petitioners were granted liberty to approach respondents for a rehearing.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach respondents for a rehearing for MAcp benefits if not granted by respondents without sufficient cause.

Ex. Hc/Gd Suraj Bhan Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

versus

¶3

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent Through Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.Ruchir Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth Singh, Advs. W.P.(C)7005/2018&C.M. No.26506/2018(for exemption) EX. HC/GD SHYAMBIRSINGH Petitioner Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondent Through Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.Ruchir Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth Singh, Advs. W.P.(C)7011/2018&C.M. No.26618/2018(for exemption) EX. HC/GD INDER PAL SINGH Petitioner Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.

¶8

versus

¶9

UNIONOFIN	DIAANDORS. Respon Through Mr.Krishna Chandra Dub Mr.Mahender Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. Govt.Counsel for UOI.	dent ey for Panel
+ W.P.(C)7012/ EXHC/GDSU	2018.&C.M.No.26619/2018(forexemption) SHILKUMARRATHOR Petitio Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.	ner

¶10

versus

¶11

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent W.P.(C) 6997/2018&conn. page 2of7

¶12

	Through Mr.Ruchir Advs.	Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth	with Singh,
+	W.P.(C)7013/2018&C.M.N HC/GDJAIBHAGWAN Through	o.26620/2018(forexemption) Petition Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.	er
	versus UNIONOOFINDIA&ORS Through Mr.Mahen Govt.Counse	Respondent Mr.Krishna Chandra Dube der Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. l for UOI.	y for Panel
+	W.P.(C)7016/2018&C.M.N EX.HC/GDAJMERSINGH Through	o.26622/2018(forexemption) Petition Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.	er
	versus
	UNIONOFINDIAANDORS Through Mr.Mahen Govt.Counse	. Respon Mr.Krishna Chandra Dube der Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. l for UOI.	dent y for Panel
+	W.P.(C)7017/2018&C.M.No EX.HC/GDRAGHUVINDER Through versus	.26623/2018(forexemption) SINGH Petition Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.	er
	UNIONOFINDIA&ORS Through Mr.Ruchir Advs. W.P.(C)6997/2018&conn.	Respon Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth p^ge3	dent with Singh, of7

¶13

W.P.(C)7018/2018&C.M. No.26624/2018(for exemption) EX. HC/GDRAM CHANDER Petitioner Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.

¶14

versus

¶15

UNIONOFINDIAANDOR Through Mr.Mahen Govt.Couns	S. Respon Mr.Krishna Chandra Dub der Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. el for UOI.	dent ey for Panel
+ W.P.(C)7019/2018&C.M.N EX HC/GD RAJ KUMAR	o.26625/2018(forexemption) Petition	er
Through	Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv.

¶16

versus

¶17

UNIONOFINDIA&ORS Through Mr.Ruchir Advs.	Ms.Shiva Ranjan Rai	Respon Lakshmi, CGSC & Mr.Siddharth	dent with Singh,
+ W.P.(C)7020/2018&C.M.N EX HC/GD REJENDRA SING Through	o.26626/201 H Mr.O.P.Aga	8(forexemption) Petitione rwal,Adv.	r

¶18

versus

¶19

UNIONOFINDIA&ORS	Respondent
Through Mr.Krishna Chand	ra Dubey for
Mr.Mahender Kr.Bhardwaj,	Snr. Panel
Govt.Counsel for UOI.

¶20

PF.P.(C) 6997/2018&conn. page 4of1

¶21

W.P.(C)7021/2018& C.M. No.26627/2018(for exemption) EX. HC/GD SHRI BHAGWAN Petitioner Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Adv. versus

¶22

UNIONOFINDIAANDOR	S. Respon	dent
Through Mr.Mahen Govt.Couns	Mr.Krishna Chandra Dub der Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. el for UOI.	ey for Panel
+ W.P.(C)7026/2018&C.M.N EX. HC/GD SURAJ BHAN Through	o.26632/2018(forexemption) Petition Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Adv.	er

¶23

versus

¶24

	UNIONOFINDIAANDORS	.	Respon	dent
	Through Mr.Ruchir Advs.	Ms.Shiva Ranjan Rai	Lakshmi, CGSC & Mr.Siddharth	with Singh,
+	W.P.(C)7027/2018&C.M.N EX. HC/GD MUKESH KUMA	o.26633/201 R	8(forexemption) Petitio	ner
	Through versus	Mr.O.P.Aga	rwal, Adv.
	UNIONOFINDIAANDORS	.	Respon	dent
	Through Mr.Ruchir Advs.	Ms.Shiva Ranjan Rai	Lakshmi, CGSC & Mr.Siddharth	with Singh,
+	W.P.(C)7028/2018&C.M.N HC/GD HARI SINGH RATH	o.26634/201 ORE	8(forexemption) Petitio	ner
	W.P.(C)6997/2018&conn.		pagg	5of7

¶25

¶26

Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv. versus UNION OF INIA & ORS ^ ^ Respondent Through Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.Ruchir Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth Singh Advs. ^ ' Through: Mr.O.P.Agarwal,Adv. Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent Through Mr.Krishna Chandra Dubey for Mr.Mahender Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. Panel Govt.Counsel for UOI CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEHIMA KOHLI HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEREKHA PALLI

¶27

ORDER 09.07.2018

¶28

In all the present petitions,learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance on a singular notice dated 11.04.2018, addressedby him to the Directorate,MinistryofPersonneland Public Grievances&Pension,GovernmentofIndiaclaiminggrantofMACP from 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008 by placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court without naming the client(s) on whose behalfthe said notice had been issued. Even the reminders dated 25.04.2018 and 09.05.2018 issued by the learned counsel for the petitionersare beautifullysilent as to on whose behalfhave they been servedon the respondents. We declineto acceptthe aforesaid W-P-(C) 6997/2018&conn. n < r-? Page 6 of 7

¶29

¶30

noticesissuedby the learnedcounselas legal and valid noticesserved on behalfof the petitioners. All the petitionsbeing premisedon the aforesaid notice, are dismissed as not maintainablealongwith the pending applications.

¶31

Libertyis howevergrantedto the petitionerswho are aggrieved by the action of respondentsin failing to grant them the benefitsof the MACP Scheme from the due date, to approachthe respondentsfor rehefin the first instance. If reliefis not grantedby the respondents for any unjustifiedreason, then the petitionerswould be at libertyto seek legal recourse.

HIMA KOHLI, J

REKH

JULY 09,2018 sr

W.P.(C) 6997/2018 & conn.

¶36

Page? of 7

Ex. Hc/Gd Suraj Bhan v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ex. Hc/Gd Suraj Bhan v. Union of India and 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

Amit Kumar Vs South Delhi M.C.D. through D.C.M.C.D Green Park and Ors.

D.K.Kaushik Vs B.S.E.S. & Anr.

S.P.Garg Vs Syndicate Bank

Paresh Nath Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Pramod Vs Cement Corporation of India (Cci)

Shaik Riaz Ahmed Vs Fiitjee Ltd. & Ors.

Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Vishal Tokas Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Anuradha Dhaul and Anr. Vs Directorate of Estate and Anr.

Ex. Constable (Driver) Shyam Sunder No. 271/SB Vs Lt. Governer, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramesh Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Const. Veramani T Vs Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.

Jatinder Kumar Popli Vs Ashok Kumar Popli

Jatinder Kumar Popli Vs Rajiv Popli & Ors.