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
8 paragraphs · 231 wordsRomesh Verma, J
The petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs:
(i) “That the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in a time bound manner by granting him adjustment/transfer to a nearby and convenient station, in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Transfer Policy; and
(ii) That the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner.”
During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the undated representation placed at page no.26 of the paper book made by the petitioner in a time-bound manner.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authority to decide the undated representation placed at page no.26 of the paper book within a period of six weeks from today, by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case, and the authority shall take a decision strictly in consonance with the provisions of law.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.