Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Satya Dev Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 89 of 2023
Decided On : 05-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for reliefs. (Para 1 , 1) |
| 2. unaddressed representation by respondents. (Para 2) |
| 3. requirement for timely decision on representation. (Para 3) |
| 4. petition disposed with right to appeal. (Para 4 , 5) |
1. Vide the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief(s):
"(a) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the gradation list of Law Officers Grade-II/ DC circulated by the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 12.10.2022;
(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to re-fix the seniority of petitioner in the post of Law Officer Grade-II over and above the respondents Nos.3 and 4 strictly in accordance with DoP&T OM dated 27th March, 2001 and DoP& AR OM dated 07th March, 1984.
(c) Pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner made representation dated 21.09.2022 which was sent to the respondents on 22.09.2022, however, till date, the said representation has not been decided by the respondents.
3. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 21.09.2022 filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within one week thereafter with reasoned order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
5. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation, he may approach the appropriate forum.
The court mandates that administrative bodies must respond promptly to representations within a reasonable timeframe, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents in response to the petitioner's representation.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to dispose of a petition when the respondents agree to revise the seniority list and provide consequential benefits if found eligible.
A writ petition may be dismissed for default and non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear or provide representation despite the matter being specifically listed for dismissal.
The court addressed the process of reviewing seniority lists and the necessity for prompt consideration of pending objections before promotions are executed.
The court established that stakeholders' interests must be considered in administrative decisions regarding seniority and promotions, allowing for representations to be made and addressed appropriate....
The High Court may issue a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an administrative authority to consider and dispose of a pending representation on its own merits without delvi....
The court emphasized the importance of reconsidering the petitioner's representation in view of a previous judgment and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
Non-consideration of representations made to a Statutory Authority amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying the court's invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of I....
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
