Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SAURABH BANERJEE
Karuna Nidhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's relief requests outlined. (Para 1 , 1) |
| 2. respondent's position on unresolved financial issues. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. direction to mha for decision within three months. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. closure of the petition with right to challenge. (Para 6 , 7) |
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 25.02.2019 rejecting the representation dated 18.12.2018 AND
ii. Issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 09.11.2017 and order dated 21.12.2017 declining grant of Transport Allowance to the petitioner; AND
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant the petitioner Back wages, Deputation Allowance and Transport Allowance and other consequential benefits from the time the petitioner was on attachment for Flying Duty i.e. w.e.f 23.01.2009 in the Post of Co-Pilot/Commandant.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that vide DO letter No. M.V-l/2011-DA-4(Fin) dated 31.05.2011 addressed to Home Secretary, the DG CRPF had expressed that the petitioner continues to lose out in terms of financial benefits and
The court directed the administrative authorities to resolve outstanding issues regarding entitlements within a specified time, highlighting the procedural route for grievance resolution in administr....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's representation and making a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
Administrative authorities must timely decide on service-related petitions made by their employees, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
Misuse of judicial process through filing repeated applications and writ petitions is not permissible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of granting the petitioners the opportunity to make a final representation and ensuring that the respondents consider relevant polici....
The court's emphasis on the need for the respondents to consider the petition as a representation and provide a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
Assurance from respondents regarding no action against petitioner due to premature transfer influenced the court's decision.
The court emphasizes that pending representations must be decided with reasoned orders, ensuring that administrative decisions are not made mechanically.
The court emphasized the importance of humanitarian grounds in administrative decisions, allowing a fresh representation and mandating timely consideration based on health circumstances.
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
