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
7 paragraphs · 247 wordsJyotsna Rewal Dua, J
This writ petition has been preferred for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
“ a) . That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to decide his representation Annexure P-2 dated 19.08.1997 within time bound directions.
b). That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the petitioner minimum pension on medical ground from the date of his superannuation illegally with entire arrears accrued threto with all consequential benefits and interest.”
During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to decide his representation (Annexure P-1), within a time bound schedule.
The respondents have raised issue of maintainability of the petition. However, considering the limited relief of the decision of his representation being pressed for by the petitioner, without going into the question of the maintainability of the petition, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to decide the representation (Annexure P-1), of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today in accordance with law. The decision be also be communicated to the petitioner. In case petitioner still feels aggrieved, he is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.