Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement ... on 13 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005621
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 13th December, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 17000/2022
SURENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj and
Ms. Alisha Saini, Advocates.
versus
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND
ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rijul Taneja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
C.M. APPL. 53866/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P(C) 17000/2022
3. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to declare
the action of the Respondents in delaying the promotion of the
Petitioner to the post of AE (Civil) and EE (Civil) on regular basis, as
illegal and arbitrary. A writ of mandamus is sought directing the
Respondents to open the sealed cover and promote the Petitioner to
the post of AE (Civil) and EE (Civil) from the date of promotion of
his juniors with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay
from the due date.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that he was recruited on
16.03.2000, to the post of JE (Civil) in Slum & JJ Department of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.12.2022
17:23:56
Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005621
erstwhile MCD, currently DUSIB. Petitioner was implicated in a false
case in 2003 and a criminal case was registered, on account of
which when the Respondents convened a DPC in 2017, for regular
promotion to the post of AE (Civil), while the juniors of the Petitioner
were promoted, in case of the Petitioner they resorted to a sealed cover
procedure. It is also pointed out that as it is the said DPC was
convened after a long period of 10 years.
5. It is stated in the writ petition that vide judgment dated
11.07.2022, Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, pursuant to
which he made a representation to the Respondents on 19.07.2022, to
open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations of the
DPC. Not getting any response, Petitioner had no option but to file the
present writ petition.
6. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
on instructions, submits that since the Petitioner has already made a
representation, he would be satisfied if direction is issued to the
Respondents to decide the representation within a time bound frame,
as the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC
109 and the provisions of the DoPT O.M. dated 14.09.1992.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to the
extent of directing the Respondents to decide the representations of
the Petitioner dated 22.07.2022 and 12.10.2022, positively within a
period of six weeks from today.
8. Needless to state that the representations will be decided in
accordance with law.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JYOTI SINGH, J
DECEMBER 13, 2022/shivam
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:17.12.2022
17:23:56
