Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Yogpal Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10582 of 2023
Decided On : 10-08-2023
OM Quashing - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme - The court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from today.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of OM dated 19.05.2009 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and also sought grant of the ACP and MACP benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from today.
Issues: Petitioner seeks quashing of OM and grant of ACP and MACP benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from today.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from today.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 41129/2023 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 10582/2023
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of OM dated 19.05.2009 of the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and also seeks grant of the ACP and MACP benefits.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent who submits that in similar circumstances there were petitions filed by other individuals, inter-alia, W.P. (C) No. 461/2023 titled as `Gorakhnath Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.', wherein this Court had directed that petition be treated as a representation. He submits that the representations are under consideration of the competent authority. He submits that some representations have been disposed of and some are still pending consideration before the competent authority.
3. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within a period of 8 weeks from today. The decision be communicated to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision, he shall have all rights to impugn the same in accordance with the law.
4. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
The court's decision emphasized the right of the petitioner to have the representation considered and decided within a specified timeframe, with the option to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
The court emphasized the need for prompt consideration of representations regarding career progression benefits under specified timelines.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
(1) Writ Jurisdiction – Limitation – Unexplained delay or laches is considered one of factors which could assume significance in denying relief when discretionary writ remedy is invoked.(2) Represent....
Every entry in an ACR must be communicated to the employee; failure to do so renders any adverse action based on those entries arbitrary and unlawful.
The entitlement to benefits under the ACP Scheme was not automatic and was subject to review and consideration by the employer. The nature of benefits under the MACP Scheme was considered as incentiv....
The court emphasized the importance of deciding the representations of the petitioner within a specified time frame and reserved the rights and contentions of the parties.
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
