Narender Singh Tyagi Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

Narender Singh Tyagi Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Bhalla and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with leave and liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be instituted against the respondents and they punished for alleged non-implementation of the judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 8003/2020 (directions on First/Second ACP and MACP financial upgradation benefits). +1 more

Court's answer

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

Ratio / Principle

Leave and liberty granted to the petitioner to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Amit Sharma, J.), CONT.CAS(C) 612/2021, decided 08.04.2026 — Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Sections 11 and 12. Contempt petition by Narender Singh Tyagi seeking punishment of the respondents for alleged non-implementation of the Division Bench judgment dated 18.01.2021 in W.P.(C) 8003/2020, which had disposed of ACP/MACP financial-upgradation claims (First and Second financial upgradation on completion of 12/24 years, third MACP on 30 years) in terms of W.P.(C) No.6437/2019, directing consideration in light of Balbir Singh Turn (Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016), Sunil Kumar Tyagi (W.P.(C) 3549/2018), M.V. Mohanan Nair ((2020) 5 SCC 421), Jaswant Singh (WP(C) 22/2015), Jai Pal Singh (WP(C) 5539/2015) and Indian Ex-Bordermen Movement (WP(C) 7447/2019), with disposal of representations within twelve weeks — expressly conditional on abidance by any contrary Supreme Court order. Reply affidavit dated 01.12.2021 placed on record the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.4.2021 (Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs by Union of India/CRPF) making the resolution dated 29.8.2008 effective from 1.9.2008 for allowances including ACP/MACP upgradation and setting aside the Delhi High Court judgments including the petitioner's writ petition, resting on the Larger Bench judgment dated 5.3.2020 in CA No. 2016/2020 (Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair — MACP in standard hierarchy, not promotional hierarchy) and DoPT O.M. No. 22034/4/2020-Estt(D) dated 23.3.2020. Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded similarity with M.V. Mohanan Nair and sought withdrawal; leave and liberty were granted to pursue appropriate proceedings before the competent forum. Petition dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of; pending applications disposed of accordingly. No monetary quantum was awarded by this Court.

$~23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- CONT.CAS(C) 612/2021

NARENDER SINGH TYAGI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Mr. Anushman Mehrotra, Advs.

versus

SHRI AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman, SPC. Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer with Insp. Athurv and Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 08.04.2026

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The present petitions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers: -

“i. Pass an order issuing the contempt against the Respondents and punish them in accordance with law for the contempt of the judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 8003/2020; and

ii. Pass any such orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

Vide judgment dated 18.01.2021 in W.P. (C) 8003/2020, and other connected matters, learned Division Bench of this Court had passed the following directions: -

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 13/04/2026 at 11:17:18

“5. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to primarily seek a mandamus to the respondents to grant the benefit of the First and Second financial upgradation under the ACP scheme with effect from completion of 12 years and 24 years and the third MACP on completion of 30 year of service. It is claimed that wherever the second Financial upgradation is granted under the second MACP, the 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 Court 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.

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 writ petition 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) , 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 ExBordermen 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 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.”

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 13/04/2026 at 11:17:18

Reply affidavit dated 01.12.2021 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in which it has been stated as under: -

“3. That vide judgment dated 18.01.2021, this Hon'ble Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 8003/2020 and directed the respondents to grant the benefits of MACP from the date of completion of 20 years of service by treating the MAGP as applicable w.e.f 1.1.2006.

It was further directed to place the petitioner in the appropriate pay scale of SI/HC etc. as the case may be (for e.g. In the case of Sis Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of 4200) from the date of completion of 20 years of regular service up to the date of voluntary retirement; and,

That the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the in WPC 8003/2020 and in several other writ petitions were examined Department and the same was challenged before the, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 28.4.2021 allowed the Civil Appeals arising out of the SLPS filed by the Union of India/ CRPF and held that the resolution dated 29.8.2008 is made effective from 1.9.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA which include financial up gradation under ACP & MACP Schemes. Therefore, the respondents and other similar situated officers are not entitled to seek benefits of MACP Scheme from 1.1.2006 according to resolution dated 29.8.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also set aside the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the several writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the present petitioner. Thus the benefit under MACP shall be applicable w.e.f. 1.9.2008 instead of 1.1.2006.

That while passing the above mentioned judgment dated 28.4.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court had relief upon the judgment dated 5.3.2020 passed by the larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 2016/2020 titled Union of India Vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had upheld the appeal of the Union of India that the benefits under the MACP cannot be granted in the promotional hierarchy and it would be in the standard hierarchy of Grade pay (Pay Levels) in the Pay Band

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 13/04/2026 at 11:17:18

(Pay Matrix) as per the existing MACP Scheme Guidelines.

That based on the judgment dated 5.3.2020, the DoPT has also issued O.M. No. 22034/4/2020-Estt (D) dated 23.3.2020 that the benefits under the MACP Scheme are to be granted in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay/ Pay Levels and not in promotional hierarchy. Copy of the Judgment dated 5.3.2020 in the case of M.V.Mohanan Nair, Judgment dated 28.4.2021 and DoPT OM dated 23.3.2020 are annexed as ANNEXURES R/1, AND R/2 respectively.”

As noted hereinabove, learned Division Bench while passing the directions had categorically clarified that in the event the Supreme Court varies or set aside the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter, then the said order passed by learned Division Bench shall abide by such order(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Mohanan Nair (supra) was rendered in similar situation, and in view of the same, he seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as available in law before the Court of competent jurisdiction/appropriate forum.

Leave and liberty granted.

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA, J

APRIL 8, 2026/ kr

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 13/04/2026 at 11:17:18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) 8003/2020 (and connected matters) by the learned Division Bench of this Court, non-implementation of which was the basis of the contempt sought against the respondents.¶16
Division Bench, High Court of Delhi · 18.01.2021
Prior proceeding
Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgment dated 5.3.2020 in CA No. 2016/2020 (Union of India Vs. M.V.Mohanan Nair), relied upon for the judgment dated 28.4.2021, had upheld the appeal of the Union of India that MACP benefits cannot be granted in the promotional hierarchy but in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay (Pay Levels) in the Pay Band (Pay Matrix).¶26
Prior proceeding
Based on the judgment dated 5.3.2020, DoPT issued O.M. No. 22034/4/2020-Estt (D) dated 23.3.2020 that MACP benefits are to be granted in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay/Pay Levels and not in promotional hierarchy; copies annexed as ANNEXURES R/1 and R/2 to the reply affidavit.¶29
Prior proceeding
Judgment dated 18.01.2021 in W.P.(C) 8003/2020 (Division Bench): writ disposed in similar terms as W.P.(C) No.6437/2019 — respondents directed to consider petitioners' ACP/MACP financial-upgradation claims in light of the listed judgments and to dispose of representations positively within twelve weeks.¶20
Prior proceeding
This Court records that the learned Division Bench, while passing the 18.01.2021 directions, had categorically clarified that the said order would abide by any order(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court varying or setting aside Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India & Anr (supra) and/or any other similar matter.¶30
Prior proceeding
Respondents' affidavit account of the 18.01.2021 judgment: W.P. No. 8003/2020 allowed; respondents directed to grant MACP benefits from completion of 20 years of service (MACP treated as applicable w.e.f 1.1.2006), with placement in the appropriate pay scale (e.g., SI Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay 4200) from 20 years of regular service up to voluntary retirement.¶23
Prior proceeding
Hon'ble Supreme Court, judgment dated 28.4.2021 allowing the Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs filed by the Union of India/CRPF: resolution dated 29.8.2008 made effective from 1.9.2008 for implementation of allowances other than Pay and DA (including financial upgradation under ACP & MACP schemes); MACP benefits applicable w.e.f. 1.9.2008 instead of 1.1.2006.¶25
Prior proceeding
By the same judgment dated 28.4.2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in several writ petitions, including the writ petition filed by the present petitioner.¶25
Prior proceeding
Reply affidavit dated 01.12.2021 filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 recording the foregoing.¶22