Sukhbeer Singh vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 2607 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of Order: April 25, 2018

+                    W.P.(C) 4140/2018 & CM 16285/2018
       SUKHBEER SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through:            Mr.S.C. Singhal, Advocate
                     versus

       TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD & ORS
                                                  .....Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate
                    for respondent No.1
                    Ms. Pratima Gupta, Standing Counsel with Mr.
                    Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent
                    No.2
                    Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Palak Rohmetra,
                    Advocates for respondent No.3
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                              ORDER

(ORAL)

1. By way of this petition, review of ACRs and consequent thereto, promotion as Deputy General Manager is sought by petitioner with retrospective effect and with arrears of pay.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite Recommendation (Annexure P-16) of the SC/ST Cell of first respondent made on 10th November, 2015, petitioner has not been promoted as Programmer from the year 2004, with consequential relief.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to seek

implementation of Recommendation (Annexure P-16) of the SC/ST Cell of first respondent.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a concise Representation to claim the relief as sought in this petition would be made to first respondent within two weeks from today. Upon receipt of such a concise Representation, first respondent shall pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of six weeks and in case Recommendation (Annexure P-16) of the SC/ST Cell of first respondent is not to be implemented, then the reasons be spelt out and fate of the said Representation be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE APRIL 25, 2018 s