Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Pramod - Appellant
Versus
Cement Corporation of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2598 of 2003
Decided On : 14-12-2022
1. This Review Petition seeks review of judgment dated 10th July 2018, passed by me in W.P.(C) 2598/2003. The prayer clause in this Review Petition reads as under:
"PRAYER
a) review the final judgment/order dated 10.07.2018 by clarifying, that the Enquiry Officer will conduct/complete the enquiry within a period of six-month(s) from commencement and further allow/permit the grant of TA/DA to the Defence Assistant as per applicable Service Rule(s); and
b) pass such other and further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity."
2. There are, therefore, two reliefs sought in this review petition. The first is that the Enquiry Officer be directed to complete the enquiry within six months. The second is that the petitioner be permitted grant of TA/DA for the defence assistant engaged by him.
3. By order dated 8th March 2019, the first prayer already stands rejected.
4. Insofar as the second prayer is concerned, the petitioner has placed on record MHA letter no. F.16/122/56-AVD dated 18th August 1960, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Mr. Mohanty submits that, under these instructions, the petitioner would be entitled to being disbursed TA/DA for the defence assistant engaged by him.
5. Mr. Birbal, learned Counsel for the respondent seriously contests the applicability of the said instructions in the case of the petitioner.
6. In a review petition, this aspect cannot be examined, as the aforesaid OM was never shown to me during the hearing of the matter.
7. Nonetheless, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this review petition with liberty to the petitioner to represent to the respondent, seeking reimbursement of TA/DA expenses for the defence assistant, on the basis of the aforesaid instructions contained in MHA letter no. F.16/122/56-AVD.
8. I do not express any opinion on the point. The respondent would take a decision on the petitioner's representation in accordance with law. The Court is sanguine that the respondent would be fair and judicious.
9. Needless to say, should the petitioner continue to remain aggrieved, his liberties to take recourse to legal remedies in that regard stands reserved.
10. The Review Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
AI
Court disallows re-examination of unpresented issues in review petitions, allowing the petitioner to seek reimbursement of expenses while reserving the right to further legal action.
The court has the authority to direct the respondents to select another four names and seek their willingness to participate as a Defence Assistant for the petitioner in the Departmental Inquiry proc....
The court emphasized the necessity for timely administrative action following an inquiry, highlighting accountability in educational governance.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the need for compliance with rules of natural justice, the presence of some evidence to support fin....
The court established that procedural fairness requires a party to have a full opportunity to present their case, without being bound by prior prejudicial findings during ongoing proceedings.
A review petition must demonstrate clear grounds such as errors apparent on the record and must be filed within the statutory time limit to be maintainable.
Timely decision-making in administrative processes is essential, especially concerning personnel pay structures, with specified deadlines for compliance to ensure fairness.
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
