AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Singh, Member (J)
MA 796/2021
The present MA has been filed by the applicant seeking direction for disposal of the OA in terms of Order/Judgment dated 29.1.2021 passed by this
Tribunal in OA 1950/2019.
Shri Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the issue raised in the present OA is identical to that in OA No.1950/2019.
With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, OA is being taken up for final disposal today.
In the present OA, the applicant, who is working as Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police under the respondents, is aggrieved by inaction of the
respondents on the representation preferred by him for extending the benefits of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 6.5.2013 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2414/2012 and other connected Writ Petitions including Abdul Nazeer Kunju and others case. It is not in dispute that the
benefits of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the said Writ Petitions have been extended to all the respondents in the said Writ
Petitions. However, the respondents have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP No.15138/2017 and other connected matters and
during pencency of the said SLPs, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the said SLP and other connected matters have
been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 4.3.2021.
However, Shri Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the present OA itself is not maintainable for the reason that the
applicant without waiting for six months after his representation as prescribed under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has
approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA. However, he has not disputed that even during pendency of the OA and after lapse of six months,
the respondents have not chosen to consider and dispose of the applicant’s representation. It is also not in dispute that once an Order/Judgment in
rem is passed, the Government being model employer is expected to extend the benefit to all similarly placed persons. However, in the present case,
the respondents have though extended the benefits of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Abdul Nazeer Kunju (supra) but have chosen
not to consider even the representation of the applicant. As such in the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that objection raised
by the learned counsel for the respondents does not hold good in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly rejected.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant’s
pending representation and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight
weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order. It is further directed that if on such consideration, the applicant‘s case is found to be similar as the
respondents in aforesaid Writ Petition (Civil) No.2414/2012 and other connected cases, including the case of Abdul Nazeer Kunju (supra), the
respondents shall accord the same benefits as given to the respondents in the said Writ Petitions and consequential benefits, if any, shall be released to
the applicant as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight weeks thereafter.
The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
The aforesaid MA also stands disposed of accordingly.