IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Sushila Vel - Appellant
Versus
Airport Authority of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3801 of 2024
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Writ Petition - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court allowed exemption for the application and disposed of it. The writ petition sought various reliefs including quashing a decision and directing the respondent to address pay anomaly and seniority issues. The court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed exemption for the application and disposed of it. The writ petition sought various reliefs including quashing a decision and directing the respondent to address pay anomaly and seniority issues. The court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed exemption for the application and disposed of it. The writ petition sought various reliefs including quashing a decision and directing the respondent to address pay anomaly and seniority issues. The court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, treatment of the petition as a representation, addressing pay anomaly and seniority issues
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed the writ petition to be treated as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Final Decision: The court allowed exemption for the application and disposed of it. The writ petition was directed to be treated as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority within six weeks, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 15603/2024 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3801/2024 & CM APPL. 15604/2024 (Explanation of maintainability of writ petition)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:
"a) Writ of Certiorari and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction, thereby quashing the decision conveyed vide impugned letter dated 11.01.2023 bearing ref. no. A.60011/15/2022-ES-1/54 issued by the Respondent No.1 and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to remove the Petitioner's pay anomaly and fix her basic pay taking into account her seniority which is more than Smt. Sulekha Sethi;
b) Directions to Respondent No.1 to process the representation made by the Petitioner vide its various letters regarding the issue of anomaly and expeditiously resolve the anomaly, thereby increasing the basic pay of the Petitioner in accordance with law in a time bound manner with consequential and pensionary benefits;
c) Directions to Respondent No.1 to relook into the seniority list of Manager (PS) dated 01.09.2022 by taking into account the seniority of the Petitioner and redraw the same by placing her higher than Smt. Sulekha Sethi, who is junior to the Petitioner;
d) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
4. Issue Notice.
5. Notice is accepted by Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and by Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
6. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits by referring to the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 that the present petition may be directed to be treated as a representation, which the Competent Authority would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. Upon such submissions of Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also has no objection to the same.
8. In view of the above, the present writ petition be treated as a representation by the respondent No.1 which the Competent Authority may consider and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.
9. The date, time and venue shall be informed to the petitioner, well in advance by the office of the Competent Authority.
10. Needless to state that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to his remedies in accordance with law, upon being furnished with the copy of the order, which would be passed by the Competent Authority.
11. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.
The court has the discretion to treat a writ petition as a representation to be considered and disposed of by the Competent Authority.
The court established that pay anomalies must be corrected retrospectively to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Inaction to rectify pay anomaly by the respondents was held as illegal, arbitrary, and against the settled proposition of law.
The court emphasized the importance of promptly rectifying pay anomalies and complying with court orders to prevent financial loss to the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.