AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 191 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Vide order dated 09.12.2021, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties was asked to get instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties has produced a letter dated 13.12.2021. The same is taken on record.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that petitioners were promoted by the Competent Authority vide order date 28.01.2021. He further submits that since petitioners have been granted regular promotion, therefore, they are not entitled to benefit of ACP.
The only direction issued by Writ Court was to consider petitioners' claim for ACP, if they are not found eligible for regular promotion and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been granted regular promotion, their claim for ACP has been rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter No. 1237 dated 13.12.2021.
In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the rejection order dated 13.12.2021, if so advised.