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
10 paragraphs · 168 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made representation before the respondent No. 2 to grant two
advance annual increments, but the same has not been considered and decide till this date and, therefore, directions may be issued to the respondent
No. 2 to decide the same expeditiously.
On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for two advance increments.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Be that as it may, the respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).