Ex. GD Prahlad v. Union of India

1. Upon being mentioned, the matter is taken on board. The attention of the Court is drawn to the statement in para 19 of the order dated 13th September, 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) 8203/2019 (Ex-Constable GD Prahalad v. Union of India and batch) that the SLP against the order of this Court in Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India has been dismissed. It is stated that the Respondents are still in the process of filing an SLP against the order in Sunil Kumar Tyagi v. Union of India. A minor typographical error in para 9 is also pointed out.

2. Accordingly the Court directs that the following corrections be carried out in the order dated 13th September, 2019 in W.P. (C) 8203/2019:

(i) In para 9, in the quoted portion clause (i) should read “(i) the Petitioner would be given the benefit of MACP with effect 2019:DHC:4696-DB from October, 2007 instead of 1st September, 2008.”

(ii) Para 19 of the order is corrected to read as under: “19. With the SLP against the order in Vijender Pal also having been dismissed, and with there being no difference factually or otherwise between those cases and the case at hand, the Court sees no reason why the same relief ought not to have been granted to the Petitioners. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Singh Turn the distinction sought to be drawn by the Respondents between civilian and defence personnel in the matter of grant of the MACP benefit from 1st January 2006 is untenable. Again, the mere fact that there may be other service conditions that are applied from a prospective date is not an answer to not implementing the benefit of the above decision in the matter of MACP to all CAPFs uniformly.”

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 pa