Delhi High Court
Dr. Devabrata Sinha vs The National Institute Of Health ... on 18 November, 2020
$~S-8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 18.11.2020
W.P.(C) 9504/2019
DR. DEVABRATA SINHA .....Petitioner
versus
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE AND ANR. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Narayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (Open Court - via Video Conferencing)
The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of
Video Conferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.
1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India assails the order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
in O.A. No.1926/2017 titled as 'Dr. Devabrata Sinha vs. National
Institute of Health & Family Welfare', whereby it was directed as
follows :-
"a) The applicant shall make a comprehensive,
representation to the respondent within a period
of two weeks from today, seeking special
dispensation for grant of pension to him by
relaxing the qualifying years of service.
b) The respondent shall consider such
representation and decide it within a period of
four weeks thereafter by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. While doing so, the respondent
shall keep in mind the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in C. Jacob (supra), under
intimation to the applicant.
c) In case the applicant remains dissatisfied by
the order to be passed by the respondent, he
shall have liberty to take recourse to appropriate
remedy, as available to him under law."
2. In compliance with the directions issued in paragraph (a)
hereinabove, the petitioner filed a comprehensive representation with
the official respondents; which representation was rejected by the
official respondents vide speaking order dated 11.03.2019.
3. It is observed that the said order passed by the official
respondents on the detailed representation made by the petitioner
herein has not been assailed by the latter in terms of the liberty granted
to him in terms of the paragraph (c) of the impugned order dated
06.09.2018.
4. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to
assail the order passed by the official respondents dated 11.03.2019
whereby his detailed representation was rejected, before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.
5. Leave and liberty granted.
6. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
7. However, in view of the circumstance that the lis between
the parties has been pending adjudication for some time and in the
backdrop of the circumstance that the petitioner is stated to suffer
from locomotor disability upto be 80%; the Central Administrative
Tribunal is requested to expedite the hearing of the
petitioner's challenge to the said order dated 11.03.2019 after
excluding the time taken in presenting the present proceedings
and condoning the delay caused thereby, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of initiation of
the proposed challenge.
8. No further directions are called for.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
'AA'
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
