Ranjeet Singh And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8890/2016 Date of decision: 21st September, 2017.

RANJEET SINGH AND ORS.

..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA SANJIV KHANNA J. (ORAL) It is stated that financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression Scheme have been granted to the petitioners, except Dev Lal Gurjar, petitioner No. 14, in whose case his claim for grant of financial upgradation has been rejected.

2.

Three grievances have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, orders granting financial upgradations have not been served upon the petitioners and in the case of petitioner No. 14, the order rejecting grant of financial upgradation has not been communicated. The second grievance raised by the petitioners is that W.P. (C) 8890/2016 Page 1 of 3

amounts dues and payable pursuant to the orders passed by the respondents have not been paid. Lastly, it is submitted that in some cases it appears that grant of financial upgradation is not from the correct date.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the orders passed by the respondent authorities will be sent to the respective petitioners under registered post within a month from the date a copy of this order is received by the respondents. We take the statement made by the counsel for the respondents on record and direct that the respondents would be bound by the said statement. The respondents would also pay arrears in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is received. Belated payments beyond three months would require payment of interest @ 8% from the date of this order till payment is made. 4.

It would be appropriate and proper that we dispose of the present petition reserving rights of the petitioners to impugn the orders passed by filing new writ petitions highlighting the facts of that case, rather than permit some of the petitioners to amend the writ petition and challenge the orders passed.

5.

Accordingly, it will be open to the 14th petitioner, namely, Dev Lal Gurjar to file an independent writ petition challenging the order now passed by the respondents. Similarly, if any of the petitioners feel that they have been denied benefit of financial upgradation from an earlier date, it will be open to them to challenge and question the orders passed in accordance with law.

6.

We dispose of the given writ petition with the aforesaid liberty. W.P. (C) 8890/2016 Page 2 of 3

We clarify having not expressed any opinion on merits. No order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017 MR/VKR W.P. (C) 8890/2016 Page 3 of 3