AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider him for promotion to the post of Restaurant Executive.
On 05.06.2017, this Court directed the respondent not to declare result of Departmental Promotion Committee. Order dated 05.06.2017 reads as: -
“Heard.
Adjourned to 12.07.2017.
In the meantime DPC may go on but the result be not declared till the next date of hearing.
This interim order will enure only till the next date of hearing.”
The aforesaid interim order was extended from time to time.
On 24.09.2024, interim order dated 05.06.2017 was recalled with following observations: -
“Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate submits that in view of interim order dated 05.06.2017 passed by this Court, the Corporation is unable to make further promotions. The petitioner has already retired on 31.08.2024. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice, if said interim order is recalled and respondents are permitted to proceed with further promotions. If the petitioner succeeds, he would be entitled for notional promotion and all consequential benefits, pursuant thereto.
Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate does not dispute afore-stated factual position. Accordingly, order dated 05.06.2017 is hereby recalled and the respondents are permitted to proceed with further promotions, if any. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for the purpose of notional promotion and all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
Adjourned to 22.10.2024.
In the meantime, both the parties may file their respective synopsis.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim order dated 05.06.2017 was recalled by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2024. While recalling order dated 05.06.2017, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for the purpose of notional promotion and all consequential benefits arising therefrom. The respondent has not considered his claim though a period of one year has passed away.
Faced with this, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 assures the Court that competent authority would consider claim of the petitioner in a time bound manner.
In the wake of statement of both sides, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider petitioner’s claim and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from today.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.