SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Brajesh Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13793 of 2022 & CM Appl. 42157 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022




The court emphasized the necessity for administrative compliance with prior court orders when determining appointment and seniority.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Mandamus - Directions for appointment and seniority - The petitioner sought to be treated as appointed on 08.11.2001, similar to batchmates, instead of 28.12.2002, alongside seeking similar pay fixing as established in prior orders - Court directed consideration of petitioner's request following prior judgments within six weeks. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Administrative Law - Compliance with court orders - Respondents directed to consider the petition based on previously established directions, ensuring timely response and provision of benefits if applicable. (Paras 2, 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, seeking similar appointment and seniority recognition as his batchmates in a police force, referenced several prior court orders ostensibly establishing a precedent for similar cases.

Findings of Court:
The petition was disposed of with directions for the respondents to review the petitioner's request and respond within specified timelines.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be recognized as appointed alongside others of his batch given previous judicial orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ensured adherence to prior decisions, emphasizing that the case should be considered on merits as laid out in earlier judgments.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for consideration.

Table of Content
1. petition for mandamus regarding appointment date and seniority. (Para 1)
2. respondents to consider petitioner’s case as per prior orders. (Para 2)
3. court directs communication of decision and benefits timeline. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
4. application and pending matters disposed. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been appointed on 08.11.2001, i.e. the date on which his batchmates were appointed to the rank of Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force instead of 28.12.2002 and thereafter, re-fix the seniority of the petitioner in the rank of Assistant Commandant, at par with his batchmates, and also fix the pay of the petitioner in the same manner as has been done by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.07.2014 passed in W.P.(C) 4348/2014, common order dated 06.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 6275/2016 and W.P.(C) 6312/2016, order dated 06.12.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 3860/2017, affirmed vide order dated 09.08.2019 in SLP (C) Dy. No.24178/2019, order dated 11.12.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 2802/2019, order dated 18.12.2019 passed in WP(C) 1425/2019, order dated 25.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 5670/2018, affirmed vide order dated 10.05.2022 in SLP (C) No.10698/2020, SLP (C) No.11533/2020 and SLP (C) No.12313/2020 and order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C) 7245/2019 and also as has been done by the respondents themselves, in compliance to the above orders so passed by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 26.07.2022, with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice has informed this Court that the case of the petitioner shall be considered within six weeks in view of the aforecited orders in the prayer of this petition.

3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the same on merits in view of the aforecited orders mentioned in the prayer of this petition within six weeks.

4. The decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

5. If the respondents are of the view that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforecited orders mentioned above, benefits of the same shall be given to him within two weeks thereafter.

6. Needless to state that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

7. Application is accordingly disposed of alongwith the pending application.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top