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
5 paragraphs · 193 wordsRajiv Sharma, J.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Heard Mr. Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press the reliefs claimed in the writ petition but restricts his prayer only to the extent that the representation dated 28.1.2009 preferred by the petitioner, contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition, may be directed to be decided, in accordance with the Regularization Rules, 1996 and Government Orders issued from time to time, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the authority concerned to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition, in accordance with the Regularization Rules, 1996 and Government Orders issued from time to time, latest by 30.6.2009, by means of a speaking and reasoned order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner