Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Balram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 12832 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023
Rule 5 (2) (a) - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - The court directed the respondents to adjudicate the petitioner's representation under Rule 5 (2) (a) and ensure its disposal within 12 weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to the respondents to adjudicate the representation under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition and directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within 12 weeks.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the active consideration of the representation by the competent authority and the need for expeditious disposal.
Final Decision: The respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's representation within 12 weeks, with the option for the petitioner to avail of further legal remedies if aggrieved.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral) - Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to adjudicate the representation under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 dated 04.09.2023 of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that representation is under active consideration of the competent authority and shall be disposed of expeditiously.
3. In view of the above, petition is disposed of and respondents are directed to decide the representation of petitioner within 12 weeks from today. Order passed be also communicated to petitioner.
4. Needless to state that in case petitioner is aggrieved by the order, he would be at liberty to avail of such remedy as available in law.
The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication of representations under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
The court established that while it can direct the consideration of representations, it does not dictate the outcome of such considerations.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to government guidelines and considering the petitioners' submissions in conducting the cadre review.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of representations under Article 226 and issued a writ of mandamus to ensure the same.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious redressal of grievances and directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with the law.
The court has the authority to direct a respondent to decide a petitioner's representation within a stipulated period of time.
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
