Prashobhan K.R vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 4012 Del

$~18
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 4874/2016 & CM No.20314/2016
       PRASHOBHAN K.R.                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate

                     versus
       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                 ..... Respondents
                     Through : Ms. Sangita Rai and
                     Ms. Sunita Singh, Advocates with
                     Mr. B.K. Rout, Pairvi Officer.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          ORDER

% 25.05.2016

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the Signals dated 28.5.2013 and 3.7.2013, whereunder the respondents have denied him the benefits of the ACP Scheme.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner had served a legal notice dated 11.1.2016 on the respondents, but the same has not been responded to till date. He submits that in any case, the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra inasmuch as vide judgment dated 5.3.2015 passed by the Division Bench in a batch of matters, lead matter being WP(C)No.388/2015 entitled 'Om Prakash vs. UOI & Ors.', directions were issued to the respondents to grant the petitioners therein the benefits of the second ACP Scheme w.e.f. the date when they had completed 24 years of service reckoned from the date of their

initial service, subject to their being found fit for promotion and subject to other eligibility conditions. It is contended that the respondents ought to have taken the same decision in the case of the petitioner as well, but have not done so till date.

3. In view of the above submission, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions issued to the respondents to reply to the petitioner's legal notice dated 11.1.2016, within a period of eight weeks from today, after taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment dated 5.3.2015, referred to herein above.

4. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J

SUNIL GAUR, J MAY 25, 2016 sk