High CourtsSingle Bench(2016) 04 DEL CK 0182

T.T. Poulose vs Airports Authority of India

Delhi High Court · Decided on 6 April 2016 · Citation: (2016) 338 ELT 497

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.P. Vaish, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 3059 of 2016 and C.M. Nos. 12927-12928 of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 407 words

V.P. Vaish, J.—CM No. 12928/2016 : Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) 3059/2016 & CM No. 12927/2016

3.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner in the grade of Assistant General Manager w.e.f. 1-7-2014 along with all incidental benefits as done in the case of Respondent No. 3. The petitioner further seeks quashing of draft seniority list dated 27-2-2015 issued by Deputy General Manager (HR)-ANS, Airports Authority of India, New Delhi.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was recruited by Respondent No. 1 as Communication Assistant in the CNS Directorate on 12-2-1990 whereas Respondent No. 3 joined the services of Respondent No. 1 as Electronics Assistant on 26-11-1990. On 24-4-2012, Respondent No. 3 was promoted as Senior Manager w.e.f. 1-7-2011. Multiple representations were given to Respondent No. 1 pointing out disparity in promotion to the post of Senior Manager in the CNS discipline. Vide letter dated 5-7-2012, Respondent No. 1 rejected the representations stating that promotions have been accorded in compliance of R & P Rules, 2005. Thereafter, on 7-8-2014, Respondent No. 3 was promoted in the grade of Assistant General Manager. The Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 27-2-2015 issued a draft combined seniority list of Assistant General Manager/Senior Manager (Tech/Ops./Elex) as on 1-1-2015 which was circulated amongst the concerned officials.

5.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No. 3 may be promoted as DGM for which the DPC stands concluded.

6.

After some arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition and application with liberty to make a detailed representation to Respondent No. 1 within a period of one week.

7.

Mr. Digvijay Rai, Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 on advance notice submits that the representation of petitioner will be decided within a period of three weeks from the date of representation.

8.

As prayed, the petition as well as application are dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that petitioner will make detailed representation within a period of one week from today and the same shall be decided by Respondent No. 1 within a period of three weeks from the date of receiving representation and the decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.