Union of India v. Ramesh Grander and Anr.

Delhi High Court · 19 Aug 2013 · 2013:DHC:7582-DB
Pradeep Nandrajog; V. Kameswar Rao
W.P.(C) 2547/2013
2013:DHC:7582-DB
administrative remanded Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's order on retrospective promotions and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in light of recent Supreme Court rulings and incomplete pleadings.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 2547/2013
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner Represented by: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
V.K.GUPTA AND ORS Represented by:
W.P.(C) 2626/2013
UNION OF INDIA
Represented by:
VERSUS
Respondents Mr.Manish Garg, Advocate for R-1 Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with
Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate for R-2 Petitioner
Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate
VERSUS
RAMESH GRANDER AND ANR. Respondents Represented by: Mr.Manish Garg, Advocate for R-1
Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocate for
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
12.07.2013
ORDER

1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on November 01, 2012 disposing of W.p. (C) 2547/2013 & W. P.(C)2626/2013 page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:7582-DB OANo.1056/2012 and OA No.1071/2012, and remand the matter.

2. The reason for the remand is the law declared by the Supreme Court in various decisions which have been noted by a Division Bench of this Court in its opinion dated April 12, 2013 deciding a batch of matters, lead matter being W.P.(C) No.8102/2012 UOI & Am. Vs.

3. The additional reason for the remand is that there are incomplete pleadings by either side. It appears that pursuant to the DPC which met on April 04, 2012 a promotion order was issued on April 17, 2012, in which 91 persons were promoted with retrospective effect.

4. It would therefore fall for consideration whether the law declared in the various decisions of the Supreme Court noted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8102/2012 would be applicable or keeping in view that the persons who were in service when the DPC met on April 04, 2012 were given promotion from retrospective dates would result in some other legal position emerging.

5. Parties join in making a joint statement that the Original Application will be permitted to be amended to which the respondents before the Tribunal would be permitted to file a response and thereafter the Original Applications would be re-decided as per law.

6. Parties shall appear before the Registrar of the Tribunal on August 19, 2013 by which date the Original Applicants before the Tribunal would file formal applications enclosing therewith the amended Original Applications. The formal applications would be allowed by the Registrar and the Original Applications as amended would be taken on record. W.p. (C) 2547/2013 (6 W.P. (C) 2547/2013 page 2 of[3]

V. Oppoitunity shall be granted to the respondents before the Tribunal to file a response to the amended Original Applications.

6. No costs.

7. DASTI. CM No.4832/2013 in W.?.(C) No.2547/2013 CM No.4979/2013 in W.P.fC) No.2626/2Q13 Dismissed as infructuous.