Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Mr Lala Ram & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 10806 of 2023 & CM APPL. 41844 of 2023
Decided On : 16-08-2023
OM dated 19.05.2009 - Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme - The court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide the same within 8 weeks, allowing the petitioner to impugn the decision if aggrieved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of OM dated 19.05.2009 of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme and also sought grant of the ACP and MACP benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to treat it as a representation and decide it within 8 weeks, with the petitioner having the right to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
Issues: Quashing of OM dated 19.05.2009, Grant of ACP and MACP benefits
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and decide it within 8 weeks, allowing the petitioner to challenge the decision if aggrieved.
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, with the petitioner having the right to impugn the decision in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The petitioner seeks quashing of OM dated 19.05.2009 of 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 petition 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 emphasized the need for prompt consideration of representations regarding career progression benefits under specified timelines.
(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....
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
Representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.
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.
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 court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's representation and providing an opportunity for personal hearing before making a decision.
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
