Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Tarsem Singh – Appellant
Versus
DG CISF – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5084 of 2023 & CM Appls. 19874-75 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Direction - Retention at CISF Unit - The court directed the respondent to retain the petitioner at any CISF units of North Sector only at his fourth service tenure in accordance with a circular, and to decide the petitioner's representation with a reasoned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to retain him at a specific CISF unit, quash a transfer order, and have his representation decided by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision with a reasoned order, while allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved.
Issues: Retention at CISF unit, quashing of transfer order, decision on petitioner's representation
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision with a reasoned order, in accordance with the petitioner's request for retention at a specific CISF unit.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision with a reasoned order, and allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent, DG CISF, New Delhi, to retain the petitioner at any CISF units of North Sector only at his fourth service tenure in terms of the circular dated 25.09.2017; quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24.03.2023 qua petitioner and consequential order dated 14.04.2023 wherein petitioner has been transferred from the present Unit of IGI Airport New Delhi to Oil Duliajan, Assam along with costs of litigation in favour of petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to impugned order dated 24.03.2023, petitioner made a representation dated 29.03.2023, however, the same has not been decided by the respondents till date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, has assured this Court that the representations mentioned above shall be decided at the earliest.
4. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to decide the above mentioned representation filed by the petitioner on or before 28.04.2023 and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within two days thereafter with a reasoned order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
6. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation, he may approach the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order, in line with the petitioner's request for retenti....
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned orders by the respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making on the petitioner's representation and the stay of any movement order until the representation is decided.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondent deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
The court emphasized the principle of mandamus and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a specific timeline.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents and granted relief to the petitioner by staying the movement order pending the decision on his representation.
The court's emphasis on the need for timely decision-making and communication of reasoned orders in response to representations made by petitioners seeking relief through writ of mandamus.
The court emphasized the importance of passing a reasoned order on the petitioner's representation and providing specific relief to the petitioner.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned order and specified a timeframe for communicating the decision on the petitioner's representation.
Authorities must decide representations timely and fairly, adhering to principles of administrative justice.
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
