Delhi High Court
Ashutosh Giri & Ors. vs Employees State Insurance ... on 1 February, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 01.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 12/2022 & CM Nos. 20-23/2022
ASHUTOSH GIRI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Gautam Narayan, Advocate
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, Standing Counsel
with Mr Judhajit Roy and Ms Mansie
Jain, Advs. for ESIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
CM Nos. 20-21/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 12/2022
CM No. 22/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking
leave to take on record additional documents]
CM No. 23/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking
interim relief]
2. Issue notice.
2.1. Mr Shlok Chandra accepts notice on behalf of the contesting
respondent i.e., respondent no. 1-Employees' State Insurance Corporation
(ESIC).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:04.02.2022
20:16:48
3. Accordingly, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the
matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself, based on
the record presently available with the Court. .
4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.09.2021,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in
O.A. No. 1984/2021.
4.1. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal by way of the aforesaid
O.A. with the grievance that the Departmental Promotion Committee [in
short, "DPC"] was not being convened for the vacancy years 2017-18 to
2020-21 for the post of Deputy Director (Regular).
4.2 Concededly, the petitioners, at present, are working on the said post,
albeit on ad hoc basis.
4.3. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, disposed of the O.A. by
directing respondents to dispose of the representations made in that behalf
by the petitioners, by way of a reasoned and speaking order.
5. Mr Gautam Narayan, who appears on behalf of the petitioners [i.e.,
the original applicants], says that even after the impugned order was passed,
several representations were made, inter alia, on 21.09.2021, 24.09.2021
and 29.11.2021.
5.1. According to Mr Narayan, there has been no movement in the matter.
6. Mr Chandra says that in case the petitioners' representations are
pending, they will be disposed of.
7. Having regard to the foregoing, we direct the respondent to dispose of
the petitioners' representations within two weeks, and furnish a copy of the
order passed in the representations, to the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:04.02.2022
20:16:48
7.1. While disposing of the representations, the respondent will bear in
mind the observations made in the judgment dated 28.02.2012, passed by a
Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C.) 5549/2007, titled Dr. Sahadeva
Singh vs Union of India and Ors.
8 The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. The parties will act on the digitally signed copy of this judgment.
RAJIV SHAKDHER J.
TALWANT SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 1, 2022/mr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:04.02.2022
20:16:48
