Disposed

Prem Chand Kashyap v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Jul 2024W.P.(C)/3777/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BSF Sub-Inspector sought quashing of orders denying 2nd ACP/MACP benefits. As respondents admitted forwarding his revision claim and credited some payment, the Court disposed of the petition directing furnishing of calculation sheet and remittance of any balance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to furnish calculation copy and remit any balance ACP/MACP payment within six weeks; petitioner free to pursue legal recourse over calculations.

Prem Chand Kashyap Vs Union of India & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3777/2023 & CM APPL. 14690/2023 –Dir. (Delay). PREM CHAND KASHYAP .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Pawan Kumar Bansal with Mr.Ahsal Haq, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms.Bharathi Raju with Mr.Venkat Mani Tripathi, Advs.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR O R D E R % 16.07.2024

¶7

The petitioner, who superannuated from the BSF as a Sub-Inspector has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶8

“i). Issue an appropriate writ/ order/ directions for quashing of letter Reference No. Estt/17BN 102/2015/17257 issued by DC/ADJT for COMMANDANT 17 BN BSF of the Respondent No. 2. Dated 18.08.2015;

¶9

ii) Issue an appropriate writ/ order/ directions for quashing of Letter Reference No. 102/ /17 BATTALION/ 2019/1876-77, issued by COMMANDAT 17, BATTALION Border Security Force of· the Respondent No.2, dated 05.12.2019;

¶10

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus upon the respondents directing them to consider and grant the benefits of ACP and MACP to the petitioner and to grant other appropriate reliefs.

¶11

iv) Rule NISI in terms of prayer above and to make the Rule absolute if no cause or insufficient cause is shown in answer thereto;

¶12

v) Such other and/ or further orders as this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit in favour of the Petitioners be made in the circumstances of the case aforesaid.”

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 23:03:45

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the respondents’ own case as set out in para 9 of the counter affidavit that on 14.12.2023 the petitioner’s claim for revision on account of 2^nd ACP has already been forwarded to the Account Officer(PAO BSF East), PAD BSF, New Delhi. Further in pursuance to the said directions, some amount has already been credited to the petitioner’s bank account without him being informed about the calculations based on which the said payments have been credited.

¶15

In the light of the aforesaid, when the respondents have themselves agreed that the petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit of 2^nd ACP nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition, which is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the calculation to the petitioner within six weeks and remit any balance payment of his account payable to him within the same period of six weeks.

¶16

Needless to state, in case the petitioner has any grievance regarding the calculations, it will be open for him to seek legal recourse as permissible in law.

¶17

REKHA PALLI, J

¶18

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶19

JULY 16, 2024 sr

¶20

Prem Chand Kashyap v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand Kashyap v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi

Mahesh Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mrs. Chinu Vs Union of India and Ors.

Swami Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs MCD and Anothers

Anand Pratap Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pervez Hayaatt Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mufg Bank Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (2)(1) & Ors.

A.K. Malik Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Mahesh Yadav Vs Union of India & Anr.

Mrs. Chinu Vs Union of India and Ors.

Si (Gd) Ajay Khungur Daimari Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Const. Shankar Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.