Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 4647/2014 & CM No.9271/2014
Decided on 16.12.2014 IN THE MATTER OF :
DHARAMVEER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate with petitioner in person.
Through : Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocate with Ms. Rita Sethi, Dy. Manager in person.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider his case in the seniority list of Stewards in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Captain against the vacancies that had arisen in the year 2010, along with all the consequential benefits.
2. On 15.9.2014, when the petition was listed for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Captain against the vacancies that had arisen in the year 2010 for the reason that the respondents had failed to communicate to him, the adverse remarks in his ACRs 2014:DHC:7074 since the year 2010. The aforesaid submission was countered by the counsel for the respondents, who had stated that as per the records, the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the year 2008 onwards were communicated to the petitioner in writing and duly acknowledged by him as having been received. She had sought leave to file a brief affidavit in this regard. The said affidavit was filed by the respondents and a rejoinder thereto was also filed by the petitioner.
3. Vide order dated 9.12.2014, counsel for the respondents was directed to make available the relevant records, including a copy of the letter dated 20.7.2010, referred to by the petitioner in his representation dated 4.8.2010 and the mode of dispatch/receipt thereof.
4. Records have been produced by the counsel for the respondents for the perusal of the Court and also handed over to the counsel for the petitioner for scrutiny. The said records reveal that the adverse remarks in the petitioner’s ACRs had been communicated to him on 9.5.2009.
5. The petitioner, who is present in Court, concedes that the aforesaid adverse ACRs were duly communicated to him. It is also not denied by him that he did not seek review of the said ACRs within a reasonable time.
6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that having been promoted to the post of Captain w.e.f. 23.7.2014, the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, along with the pending application. (HIMA KOHLI) DECEMBER 16, 2014 JUDGE sk