Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Mahender Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT (oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) To issue a writ of mandamus or any such order by directing the Respondent No. 3 to grant the benefit of 3rd MACP to the Petitioner upon completion of 30 years of his regular service i.e. since 01.04.2020 along with subsequent benefits arising there from;
b.) To issue a writ of mandamus or any such order by directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to grant promotion of Sub Inspector/GD post to the Petitioner in terms of Combined Approved List - 'B'/GD - 04/2021 dated 29.10.2021 through which the promotion from ASI/GD to SI/GD has been released by the Respondent No. 2 to the batchmates of the Petitioner along with subsequent benefits arising there from."
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that both reliefs as sought in the present petition have already been satisfied and the copy of the order to this effect has been furnished to the counsel for the petitioner.
3. At this stage, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed by the respondents, both the prayers of the present petition have been satisfied and consequently, the present p
The court mandates timely consideration of employee promotion applications with a reasoned decision-making process.
The court emphasized the importance of timely consideration of representations and the option for petitioners to challenge decisions if still aggrieved.
The court's emphasis on the need for the respondents to consider the petition as a representation and provide a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
Employees are entitled to timely resolution of representations regarding service benefits, and failure to respond allows for judicial intervention to ensure compliance.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus, emphasizing the need for timely decisions on representations made by petitioners.
The court used the writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of timely decision-making by the respondent authority in matters related to the MACP scheme.
The court's decision highlighted the principle of mandamus and the requirement for reasoned orders within a specified timeframe.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
