IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 4662/2013

UNION OF INDIA Represented by: Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate

..... Petitioner

versus
SANJAY KUMAR and ORS. Represented by: None ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

ORDER 26.07.2013 C.M No.10681/2013

Allowed subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 4662/2013 1. The point which arises for consideration has not been pleaded with clarity in the writ petition but we note the same for the benefit of the successor Bench. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P.(C) 19387/2011 has prima facie proceeded on a wrong assumption that the only difference between the ACP and the MACP scheme was to remove stagnation, in the sense that under the ACP scheme 2 financial upgradations upon rendering 12 years and 24 years service were envisaged and under the MACP scheme 3 financial upgradations after rendering 10, 20 and 30 years service was envisaged. The Punjab and Haryana High Court did not take W.P.(C) 4662/2013 Page 1 of 2

into account that when the MACP scheme was introduced the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission were in place and hithertofore concept of pay scale came to be replaced by pay bands and grade pay.

2. Respondents be served with a notice without enclosing copy of the writ petition indicating in the notice that such respondent who wants to obtain a copy of the writ petition may obtain the same from the chamber of Ms.Sonia Sharma, Advocate: 137-A, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Noting that the respondents are all over India we direct that notice be served by means of Regd.A.D Post returnable for September 04, 2013. C.M No.10680/2013(Stay)

Notice. Till the present order is vacated or modified operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

JULY 26, 2013