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
6 paragraphs · 260 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents did not implement the order dated 19.09.2017 passed in OA No.2963/2017. Through the said order, this Tribunal has set aside the Memorandum dated 29.06.2017 issued by the respondent stating that the competent authority in the ACC has returned the proposal for promotion of the applicant to the grade of SAG. A direction was also issued to consider the case of the applicant in the light of DO letter dated 09.03.2017. The applicant contends that though the direction issued by the Tribunal was clear in its purport, the respondents did not implement the same at all.
The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal, the ACC has considered the case of the applicant and has rejected it through order dated 21.12.2017. According to them, the applicant cannot be extended the benefit of promotion in view of the office Memorandum dated 02.11.2012 issued by the DoP&T.
The applicant filed rejoinder opposing the counter affidavit.
We heard Shri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D. S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the respondents at some length.
After arguing the case extensively, learned counsel for the applicant sought permission of the Tribunal to withdraw the CP without prejudice to the right of the applicant to challenge the order dated 21.12.2017. We, therefore, close the contempt petition as withdrawn, leaving it open to the applicant to file a fresh OA challenging the order dated 21.12.2017.