SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2375 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Pulak Gupta and Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla CGSC along with Mr. Sarvan Kumar GP and Sh. Paramveer Singh AC (Law), BSF., for the Respondents.

Compliance with court orders and timely decision on pending representations.

Headnote:

Exemption - Writ Petition - The court allowed the exemption applications and disposed of the petition seeking reliefs related to compliance with previous court orders and conduct of proper DPC for promotion.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reliefs related to compliance with previous court orders and conduct of proper DPC for promotion. The petitioner had also filed representations which were pending for decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in terms of the previous court order within a specified timeline and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The court also allowed the exemption applications.

Issues: Compliance with previous court orders, conduct of proper DPC for promotion, pending representations, and exemption applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner in accordance with the previous court order and allowed the exemption applications.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner and communicate the decision within a specified timeline.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 9078/2023 (Seeking Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of

CM APPL.9079/2023 (Seeking Exemption)

3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

4. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2375/2023

5. A petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

    "a.) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to comply with the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition(C) 2121/1998 (ANNEXURE P1) in true and fair manner and conduct proper DPC for the Petitioner as per the rules for promotion from Dy. Commandant to the rank of Second-in-command in terms of order dated 24.07.2012 and accordingly grant him all the consequential benefits as has been done in case of similarly situated person namely Sh. Madhu Sudan Sharma and Sh. Indra Kumar Mehta vide order and judgment dated 28.07.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) 8709/2010 and 7241/2001 titled as "Indra Kumar Mehta V Union of India & Ors." and "Sh. Madhu Sudan Sharma vs Union of Induia and Ors." respectively. (ANNEXURE P12);

    b.) Award Rs.20 Lacs as cost of litigation in Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court since 1998 i.e. filing of W.P.C) No. 2121/1998 till disposal of this Writ Petition;

    c.) To issue any other relief and further relief to the Petitioner in the interest of justice which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the above facts and circumstances."

6. For the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has filed representation dated 20.12.2019 and thereafter on 06.04.2022. However, the said representations are still pending for decision.

7. We hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in terms of the Order dated 24.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.P (C) 2121/1998 with reasoned order within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

8. Needless to say that if the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate Forum.

9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top