RAJ SINGH vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS)

SUNIL GAUR ,J.

Petitioner, by way of Representation (Annexure P-5), had sought fixation of his seniority and the said Representation has been rejected by

respondent vide impugned order of 16th February, 2018 (Annexure P-6).

Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order (Annexure P-6) on the ground that petitioner had claimed parity with Rishi Sharma and Kali

Ram, but the impugned order nowhere deals with the parity aspect. It is pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that as per promotion order of 28th

January, 2012 (Annexure P-4), petitioner’s seniority was to be fixed in due course and not from the date of this order.

Upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner has not been

considered in impugned order while rejecting petitioner’s Representation.

4.In the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a fresh and concise

Representation to respondent within a week from today to claim the relief as sought in this petition. Upon receipt of said Representation, respondent

shall pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of eight weeks and convey its fate to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may

avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

5.With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. Â