JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

(The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode)

1. The petitioner challenges the dismissal of rejection of his representation vide the minutes of the meeting dated 06.06.2019 of the selection committee depriving the petitioner from the financial upgrdation as Upper Division Clerk (Judicial Assistant) from 26.07.2008 with consequential reliefs emanating therefrom.

2. Mr. Chandiok, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is undisputed that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 25.07.2003 and had been rendering continuous services thereafter. He submits that by virtue of the order dated 22.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 5686/1998 captioned as Shri Jagdish Rana & Ors. Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had on similar circumstances, involving similar employees directed that the respondent/GNCTD forthwith sanction the upgradation for post of LDC to UDC in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.10.1979 and 20.03.1994 of the staff working in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Delhi and other similar courts. The Court had also directed consequential benefits should also be disbursed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had on 01.09.2010 submitted his technical resignation which was accepted and he had joined the services of Central Secretariat Services subsequently. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the order passed by this Court was not implemented, some of the petitioners therein had filed the contempt case (C)1079/2016 whereby the respondent was directed to comply with the said orders within the stipulated period of time. Consequent thereto, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent in compliance of the order of 22.03.2010 in Jagish Rana case (Supra) as also the contempt order dated 26.09.2016 passed by this Court had issued a circular dated 16.08.2017 giving a list of almost 1421 employees across the District Courts who were upgraded from the post of LDC to UDC with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was surprised to see that in the list of 1421 employees, the name of the petitioner was conspicuous by its absence. In fact, learned counsel invites attention of this Court at serial number 1358 as a case study in the case of Manish Saroja who was considered to be promoted to the post of UDC w.e.f. 26.07.2008 was in fact the batch mate of the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner was missing from the said list. The petitioner, as a follow up of finding his name not present in the said list, had submitted a representation dated 30.08.2017 which was considered and rejected by the committee vide the minutes of meeting/office order dated 15.12.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second representation was submitted thereafter by the petitioner which too was considered and dismissed, purely on the basis of judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)4194/2012 captioned Ghanshyam Prasad Vs. The District And Sessions Judge, Delhi And Anr. vide the order dated 02.08.2017.

5. Learned counsel submits that the reliance on the aforesaid judgment while rejecting his representation was completely misplaced inasmuch the issue raised therein had no similarity to the issue raised by the present petitioner in the second representation. In fact, according to Mr. Chandoik, the issue in the case of Ghanshyam Prasad (Supra) was revolving around as to whether the period of lien should be extended or not, however, in the present case, the petitioner was merely seeking the implementation of the order dated 22.03.2010 in respect of his financial upgradation and that too for the period of his service from 26.07.2008 through till his technical resignation was accepted on 01.09.2010.

6. According to Mr. Chandiok, the rejection of the second representation on the aforesai