Malti Gautam vs Union Of India And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7192 Del

$~2
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C)8695 /2015
%                                      Judgment dated 21st September, 2015
       MALTI GAUTAM                                        ..... Petitioner
                   Through :           Petitioner in person.
                          versus
   UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                        ..... Respondents

Through : Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Kritika Sharma and Ms. Megha Singh, Advs. For respondent no.3/UPSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking a direction to quash the impugned Order

dated 13.8.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, in O.A.No.46/2014 and the consequent orders. The petitioner also

seeks a direction for conducting review DPC as early as possible, ignoring

the non-communicated below benchmark ACRs but following the

procedure prescribed by the Delhi High Court in the case of UOI & Ors.

V.S. Arora and Others, with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances,

seniority from the date her juniors were promoted to SAG.

2. It may be noticed that while disposing of the aforstated O.A. filed by the

petitioner, on 13.8.2015 the following directions were issued by the

Tribunal:

(a) The applicant shall make a representation afresh for expunction of adverse remarks in her ACRs of 1999- 2000 and 2003-2004 and the respondents will take a view thereon by passing a reasoned and speaking order; and

(b) After taking action at (a) above, a review DPC will be convened in which the DPC will ignore 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 ACRs and consider and consider (sic.) ACRs of 1999-2000 and 2003-2004 in the light of the decision taken by the respondents at (a) above as well as their own guidelines which they had set for deciding such cases and again record its finding through a reasoned and speaking order.

3. The petitioner, who appears in person, concedes that no representation has

been made by her to the respondents after passing of the order dated

13.08.2015. She further submits that in the past she had made

representations to the respondents, which were rejected by them.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have brought to the

notice of the petitioner that the representation, which is to be made by her,

is to be decided by the respondents in the light of the observations made by

the Tribunal while passing the impugned Order dated 13.8.2015.

5. Accordingly, as agreed, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the

following directions that:

(i) The petitioner shall file her representation within one week from

today.

(ii) The respondents will decide the representation of the petitioner

positively within four weeks from the date of filing of the

representation, having regard to the submissions made by the

petitioner that her date of retirement is approaching fast.

6. DASTI to the parties.

G.S.SISTANI, J

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 msr