Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Biju Nanda Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5745 of 2023 & CM Appl. 22520 of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Impugned Order - Recovery of Risk and Hardship Allowance - The court directed the respondents to treat the present petition as a representation and decide it within two weeks, taking into consideration relevant Office Memorandum and subsequent policy, and communicate the decision to the petitioners within three days. The respondents were further directed not to affect any recovery till the decision of the representation of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought quashing of the impugned order for recovery of risk and hardship allowance and direction to return the deducted amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation, decide it within two weeks, consider relevant Office Memorandum and subsequent policy, and communicate the decision to the petitioners within three days. The respondents were further directed not to affect any recovery till the decision of the representation of the petitioners.
Issues: Quashing of impugned order, return of deducted amount, and direction for representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to consider relevant Office Memorandum and subsequent policy while deciding the petitioners' representation and to communicate the decision within three days.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by giving direction to the respondents to treat it as a representation, decide it within two weeks, consider relevant Office Memorandum and subsequent policy, and communicate the decision to the petitioners within three days. The respondents were further directed not to affect any recovery till the decision of the representation of the petitioners.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed seeking call for the records and quashing of the impugned order/communication dated 06.02.2023 issued by the SHQ, BSF, BHUJ. Further seeks direction to return the amount that has already been deducted from the petitioners towards the impugned recovery orders.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr.Rishabh Sahu, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that if the petitioners have any grievance regarding the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ, BSF, Bhuj for recovery of risk and hardship allowance, they may make a representation to the respondents and the same shall be decided as per law.
4. Counsel for the petitioners requests this Court that if the present petition be treated as a representation and the same shall be decided by the respondents as per law.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we hereby dispose of the present petition by giving direction to the respondents to treat the present petition as a representation filed by the petitioners and the same shall be decided within two weeks and while deciding the petitioners' representation, the respondents shall take into consider the Office Memorandum No.II- 27012/40/CF-3396706/2017-PF-I dated 31.07.2017 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and other subsequent policy, if any, and the decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioners in writing within three days thereafter.
6. The respondents are further directed not to affect any recovery till the decision of the representation of the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.
8. Needless to state, if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, they may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the importance of considering relevant Office Memorandum and subsequent policy in deciding the petitioners' representation and communicating the decision within three days.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of granting the petitioners the opportunity to make a final representation and ensuring that the respondents consider relevant polici....
Authorities must decide representations promptly as part of their duty to ensure timely justice.
Timely decision on representations by administrative authorities is essential for ensuring administrative justice, as upheld by the court.
The court mandated the timely adjudication of a representation against a retirement order to uphold efficient administrative processes in service matters.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 167(2) of the BSF Rules and the court's direction to the respondents to decide the petition within a specified timeframe....
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....
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
