Hon’ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):-

The applicant is aggrieved that his claim for

promotion has not been considered despite the fact

that the said claim is squarely covered by judgments

of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)

4414/1999 as also W.P.(C) 2945-46/2005.

2. By virtue of the present OA he seeks the following

relief:-

“a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records

pertaining to the present petition before their lordships for the

proper adjudication in the matter.

(b) Declaring the actions of the respondents not to considering

and finalizing the request of the applicant for extending the

benefits of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in

WP(C) No. 4414/1999 titled as Satyewan Malik Vs Union of India

& Ors., WP(C) 2945-46/2005 titled as Mahipal Singh & Anr. Vs

Govt. of NCT Delhi including WP(C) No. 17871/2001 further

3

upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on dt 13.11.2009 in SLP No

30308 of 2009 (GNCTD Vs Balwant Singh) and SLP No. 30305-

306/2009 (GNCTD Vs Mahipal Singh) is as deliberate, biased,

perverse illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional,

discriminatory, mechanical and not sustainable in the eyes of law

and thereafter,

(c) Directing the respondents to consider the claim of the

applicant for extending the benefits of the law laid down in case of

similarly situated persons including juniors also by the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 4414/1999 titled as Satyewan

Malik Vs Union of India & Ors. further extended in WP(C) 2945-

46/2005 titled as Mahipal Singh & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi

including WP(C) No. 17871/2001 further upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on dt. 13.11.2009 in SLP No. 30308 of 2009

(GNCTD Vs Balwant Singh) and SLP No. 30305- 306/2009

(GNCTD Vs Mahipal Singh), within some stipulated period.

(d) Allowing the OA of the applicant with all other consequential

benefits and costs.

(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant confirms that the

applicant has expressed his grievance through

4

appropriate representations from time to time to the

respondents but he is yet to get any reply upon the

same. There is one correspondence on record,

addressed to the Public Information Officer dated

30.10.2023 seeking information w.r.t. status of his

representations.

4. Issue notice.

5. Shri Girish C. Jha learned counsel who appears on

advanced service accepts notice .

6. Against the background of the fact that the

applicant’s representations qua the subject of the OA

are lying unattended, no useful purpose would be

served in dwelling any further upon this OA till the

respondents take a decision there upon.

7. We dispose the OA of, with a direction to the

competent authority amongst the respondents to take

an appropriate decision in accordance with the rules

and against the background of the facts of the case

5

upon the said pending representations of the

applicant. Considering that much time has lapsed, we

offer a liberty of two weeks to the applicant, from the

date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, to make

a supplementary/additional representation if he so

wishes. The competent authority, thereafter, shall be

at liberty to take an appropriate decision upon the

same within a period of eight weeks and convey it to

the applicant by way of a reasoned communication.

8. While disposing of this OA against the background

of the aforesaid directions, we would like to

emphatically state that nothing in this order is to be

read as a comment upon the merits of the claim of the

applicant.

9. There shall be no orders as to cost.

(Manish Garg) (Tarun Shridhar)

Member (J) Member (A)

/ss/