Rajender Singh vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Others

R. N. Singh, Member (J)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The present OA has been filed by the applicant alleging inaction against the respondents in not granting him the financial upgradation on completion

of the requisite years of service, keeping in view the provisions of the ACP/MACP Scheme dated 09.08.1999 and 19.05.2009 respectively. The

learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had become eligible for grant of 1st financial upgradation w.e.f. 09.08.1999 & for the 2nd

financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.07.2008 and thereafter for 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 04.07.2014.

He further submits that the respondents were duty bound to consider the applicant for grant of aforesaid financial upgradations and accord the benefit

to him. However, the respondents have not done the needful in spite of various representations by the applicant including the last representation dated

19.07.2017 addressed to Hon’ble LG (Annexure A-9), followed by another representation to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Dt.

1.9.2020 (Annexure A-10) and by the legal notices dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure A-1). It is alleged that there has been no response.

Issue notice to the respondents. Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance

service and accepts notice.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the present OA is disposed of with direction to the

respondents to consider the aforesaid representations of the applicant and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time

bound manner.

To such request on behalf of the applicant, Ms. Esha Mazumdar submits that OA is delayed badly and not maintainable on the face of it, in view of

the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. She submits that repeated representations will not extend the period of

limitation and accordingly, the present OA does not deserve any relief.

However, learned counsel for respondents does not dispute that if the applicant had made representations, it is incumbent upon the respondents to

look into the grievance of the applicant and dispose of his representations.

In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present OA, without going into the merits of the claim of the applicant and/or the limitation, if any,

involved in the matter, with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant’s aforesaid representations and to dispose of the same, keeping

in view the rules and instructions on the subject and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and

in any case within a period of four weeks. In case, as a result of this process, certain amounts are found due, necessary action be also taken to

release the same within a further period of eight weeks. No order as to costs.