Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) + W.P.(C)8610/2015& C.M.No.18703/2015 JATINDERPAL SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sherawat, Advocate
(i) + W.P.(C)8610/2015& C.M.No.18703/2015 JATINDERPAL SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sherawat, Advocate
VERSUS
SHRI GURU TEGH BAHADURINSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IT&ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh &Ms.Astha Sharma,Advocatesfor respondents
No. 1 &2 Mr.Vaibhav Kalra,Advocate for respondent No.3
(ii) + W.P.(CI8681/2015& C.M.No.19041/2015 BABU SINGH _ Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sherawat, Advocate
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh &Ms.Astha Sharma,Advocatesfor respondents
No. 1 &2 Mr.Vaibhav Kalra,Advocate for respondent No.3
(ii) + W.P.(CI8681/2015& C.M.No.19041/2015 BABU SINGH _ Petitioner
Through: Mr.RajKumar Sherawat, Advocate
VERSUS
SHRI GURU TEGH BAHADURINSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT&IT «fe ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh & Ms.Astha Sharma,Advocatesforrespondents
No. 1 &2 Mr.Vaibhav Kalra,Advocate for respondent No.3
Through: Mr.Jasmeet Singh & Ms.Astha Sharma,Advocatesforrespondents
No. 1 &2 Mr.Vaibhav Kalra,Advocate for respondent No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR W.P.Cg No.8610/2015 Page1
W.P.(C]No.8681/2015 2015:DHC:11416
14.09.2015 In the above captioned two petitions,petitioners elaim to have filed representation against their suspension order, whieh according to petitioners' counsel,has not been decided till date.
Since the relief sought in these two petitions is on identical grounds,therefore,these petitions are being heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Notice.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.l & 2 and Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalfofrespondent No.3.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1.& 2, submits that if representalsons of petitioners, against their suspension orders, are still pending then the same would be decided within a period offour weeks and its fate would be communicated to petitioners within a week thereafter.
Let it be so done.
Atthis stage,learned counsel for petitioners submits that challenge in this petition is also to the demotion order, which has been passed without holding an enquiry and these writ petitions be treated as representations against the demotion order and respondents be directed to decide it while indicating as to whether the demotion order is in accordance with the rules and regulations ofrespondents.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2, W.P.fC]No.8610/2015 Page2
W.P.fC] No.8681/2015 f o V- submits that these writ petitions would be treated as representations against demotion order of petitioners and a decision thereon would be taken by respondents within a period of eight weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioners by passing a speaking order. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents No.l & 2 that during the period of suspension, petitioners would be paid the subsistence allowance as per rules.
While taking the aforesaid undertaking furnished on behalf of counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 on record, the above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail ofthe remedy,as available in the law,ifneed be.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 14,2015 r W.P.(C)No.8610/2015 Page 3
W.P.(C] No.8681/2015 M
W.P.(C]No.8681/2015 2015:DHC:11416
14.09.2015 In the above captioned two petitions,petitioners elaim to have filed representation against their suspension order, whieh according to petitioners' counsel,has not been decided till date.
Since the relief sought in these two petitions is on identical grounds,therefore,these petitions are being heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Notice.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.l & 2 and Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate, accepts notice on behalfofrespondent No.3.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1.& 2, submits that if representalsons of petitioners, against their suspension orders, are still pending then the same would be decided within a period offour weeks and its fate would be communicated to petitioners within a week thereafter.
Let it be so done.
Atthis stage,learned counsel for petitioners submits that challenge in this petition is also to the demotion order, which has been passed without holding an enquiry and these writ petitions be treated as representations against the demotion order and respondents be directed to decide it while indicating as to whether the demotion order is in accordance with the rules and regulations ofrespondents.
Mr. Jasmeet Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2, W.P.fC]No.8610/2015 Page2
W.P.fC] No.8681/2015 f o V- submits that these writ petitions would be treated as representations against demotion order of petitioners and a decision thereon would be taken by respondents within a period of eight weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioners by passing a speaking order. It is also submitted by learned counsel for respondents No.l & 2 that during the period of suspension, petitioners would be paid the subsistence allowance as per rules.
While taking the aforesaid undertaking furnished on behalf of counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 on record, the above captioned two petitions and applications are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to avail ofthe remedy,as available in the law,ifneed be.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 14,2015 r W.P.(C)No.8610/2015 Page 3
W.P.(C] No.8681/2015 M
JUDGMENT