GD Satender Singh Negi v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 09 Jul 2018 · 2018:DHC:8770-DB

Hima Kohli; Rekha Palli

W.P.(C) 6997/2018

2018:DHC:8770-DB

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking MACP benefits from an earlier date due to invalid legal notices and directed petitioners to first seek administrative redressal.

Full Text

/ $-19 to 23,28 to 36 & 38-41 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P,(C) 6997/2018 &&C.M. No.26461/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD SATENDER SINGH NEGI Petitioner
Through Mr.O.P.Agarwal, Adv.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent
Through Mr.Krishna Chandra Dubey for Mr.Mahender Kr.Bhardv^aj, Snr. Panel
Govt.Counsel for UOI.

W.P.(C) 6998/2018 &C.M. No.26462/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD PRITHVI SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

Mr.Mahender Kr.Bhardwaj, Snr. Panel Govt.Counsel for UOI. W.P.(C) 7003/2018 &C.M. No.26504/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD DALBIR SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

Through Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with Mr.Ruchir Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth Singh, Advs.

W.P.(C) 7004/2018 &C.M. No.26505/2018 (for exemption)
EX HAV LAXMAN RAM Petitioner mP-(C)6<>97/2018&conn. page Iof7
2018:DHC:8770-DB

VERSUS

Advs.

W.P.(C) 7005/2018 &C.M. No.26506/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD SHYAMBIR SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .... Respondent Advs.

W.P.(C) 7011/2018 &C.M. No.26618/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD INDER PAL SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

Govt.Counsel for UOI. W.P.(C) 7012/2018.& C.M. No.26619/2018 (for exemption)
EXHC/GD SUSHIL KUMAR RATHOR Petitioner

VERSUS

W.P. (C) 6997/2018 &conn. page 2of7
Advs.

W.P.(C) 7013/2018 &C.M. No.26620/2018 (for exemption)
HC/GD JAIBHAGWAN Petitioner

VERSUS

UNIONO OF INDIA &ORS Respondent Govt.Counsel for UOI. W.P.(C) 7016/2018 &C.M. No.26622/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD AJMER SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

Govt.Counsel for UOI. W.P.(C) 7017/2018 &C.M. No.26623/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD RAGHUVINDER SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA &ORS Respondent Advs.

W.P.(C) 6997/2018 &conn. p^ge 3of7

W.P.(C) 7018/2018 &C.M. No.26624/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GDRAM CHANDER Petitioner

VERSUS

W.P.(C) 7019/2018 &C.M. No.26625/2018 (for exemption)
EX HC/GD RAJ KUMAR Petitioner

VERSUS

Advs.

W.P.(C) 7020/2018 &C.M. No.26626/2018 (for exemption)
EX HC/GD REJENDRA SINGH Petitioner

VERSUS

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

W.P.(C) 7021/2018 &C.M. No.26627/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD SHRI BHAGWAN Petitioner

VERSUS

W.P.(C) 7026/2018 &C.M. No.26632/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD SURAJ BHAN Petitioner

VERSUS

Advs.

W.P.(C) 7027/2018 &C.M. No.26633/2018 (for exemption)
EX. HC/GD MUKESH KUMAR Petitioner

VERSUS

Advs.

W.P.(C) 7028/2018 &C.M. No.26634/2018 (for exemption)
HC/GD HARI SINGH RATHORE Petitioner

W.P.(C) 6997/2018 &conn. pagg 5of7

VERSUS

UNION OF INIA &ORS ^ ^ Respondent Mr.Ruchir Ranjan Rai & Mr.Siddharth Singh
Advs. ^ ' : Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent Govt.Counsel for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
09.07.2018

ORDER

1. In all the present petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance on a singular notice dated 11.04.2018, addressed by him to the Directorate, Ministry ofPersonnel and Public Grievances &Pension, Government ofIndia claiming grant ofMACP 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 behalf the said notice had been issued. Even the reminders dated 25.04.2018 and 09.05.2018 issued by the learned counsel for the petitioners are beautifully silent as to on whose behalfhave they been served on the respondents. We decline to accept the aforesaid W-P-(C) 6997/2018 &conn. n < r-? Page 6 of[7] notices issued by the learned counsel as legal and valid notices served on behalfofthe petitioners. All the petitions being premised on the aforesaid notice, are dismissed as not maintainable alongwith the pending applications.

2. Liberty is however granted to the petitioners who are aggrieved by the action ofrespondents in failing to grant them the benefits of the MACP Scheme from the due date, to approach the respondents for rehefin the first instance. Ifrelief is not granted by the respondents for any unjustified reason, then the petitioners would be at liberty to seek legal recourse. JULY 09,2018 sr W.P.(C) 6997/2018 & conn. HIMA KOHLI, J REKH Page? of 7

GD Satender Singh Negi v. Union of India and Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

ORDER

Contact Us for a Free Consultation