Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Dinesh vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 2 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.2072/2014 Order Reserved on: 30.06.2014 Order pronounced on 02.07.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) Shri Dinesh, DANICS Aged about 43 years S/o Shri S.L.Kashipathi R/o DA/23 D, Hari Nagar New Delhi 110 064. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) Versus 1. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary 5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Services) GNCT of Delhi 7th Level, `B Wing Delhi Secretariat I.P.Estate New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
Heard Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant, who is working as Grade-I (DASS)-in the Respondent-Govt. of NCTD, filed the present OA having aggrieved by the action of the respondents in promoting his juniors against Ex-Cadre Post, equivalent to DANICS, on ad hoc basis, ignoring his claims. The OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(a) quash and set aside the impugned orders placed at Ann. A/1 and Ann. A/2.
(b) hold that the applicant has wrongly been denied promotion to the excadre post of DANICS on adhoc and emergent basis and
(c) direct the respondents to immediately consider the applicant for promotion and to promote him to the ex-cadre post of DANICS on adhoc and emergent basis w.e.f. the date his immediate junior has been so promoted with all consequential benefits.
(d) pass any other order/direction which this Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(e) award costs of the proceedings..
2. When this matter taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the applicant, having noticed that the Annexure A1 and A2, whereunder various persons were promoted on ad hoc basis to the ex cadre posts equivalent to DANICS, were sought to be quashed, without making the affected parties as respondents to the OA, submitted that the relief 8(a) is not pressed and limited his prayer for consideration of his case with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted to ex cadre post equivalent to DANICS.
3. It is also observed that the applicant has not made any representation to the respondents, ventilating his grievance, before approaching this Tribunal by way of filing this OA, though the Annexure A1 and Annexure A2 are dated 14.11.2012 and 17.12.2013 respectively, whereunder the juniors to the applicant were said to have been promoted.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant rightly contended that there is no statutory remedy available for redressal of his grievance and that even where there is a statutory alternative remedy is available, in an appropriate case, the Tribunal can still exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review, but in the circumstances, we deem it fit to dispose of this OA permitting the applicant to make an appropriate representation.
5. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, by permitting the applicant to make an appropriate representation ventilating his grievances within two weeks from today, and if such a representation is made, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon, within eight weeks therefrom. If the applicant is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to question the said order, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
(V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/