Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner is working as Deputy Chief Security Officer in Delhi Jal Board. He is aggrieved by two orders bearing No. 277 and 278 passed by respondent No.1 on 7.11.2008. The petitioner is further aggrieved by a circular dated 7/10.11.2008 issued by respondent No.1 inviting objections against a seniority list of Security Officers of Delhi Jal Board within 15 days time. The petitioner is stated to have filed his objections against the seniority list circulated by respondent No.1 vide impugned circular dated 7/10.11.2008 (Annexure-5 at page 86 of the paper book). The petitioner is, in fact, aggrieved by wrong fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Security Officers and apprehends that he may be demoted by respondent No.1 and according to him in case if he is demoted then the petitioner is likely to suffer great prejudice.

Mr. Nishakant Pandey, Advocate is present on behalf of respondent No.1.

This writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself because counsel for both parties have agreed for passing of a consent order in the matter.

The petitioner as on date is working as Deputy Chief Security Officer in Delhi Jal Board (respondent No.1 herein). He has not been demoted by respondent No.1 from the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer till date. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is about wrong fixation of his seniority in the cadre of Security Officers. Respondent No. 1 vide impugned circular dated 7/10.11.2008 (Annexure 5 at page 86 of the paper book) has invited objections from the affected persons against seniority list circulated therewith. The petitioner has filed his objections to the provisional seniority list and his objections are yet to be decided by respondent No. 1. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he may be demoted by respondent No. 1 from the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer to a lower post. Mr. Nishakant Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 says that the petitioner shall not be demoted from the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer until decision on his objections against the provisional seniority list and for a period of four weeks thereafter to enable the petitioner to exhaust his legal remedy in case he is still aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.1 with regard to determination of his final seniority in the cadre of Security Officers. In view of this statement made by the counsel for respondent No.1, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that he does not want to press the present writ petition in case the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide his objection against provisional seniority list expeditiously and not to demote him till expiry of four weeks from the date of decision of his objection.

In view of the above and having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the objections of the petitioner against the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Security Officers as expeditiously as possible and should not demote the petitioner from the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer presently held by him till expiry of four weeks from the date of decision on the objections of the petitioner. Needless to state that the respondent No. 1 shall communicate he decision on the objections of the petitioner against the provisional seniority list to him immediately on decision of the objections.