Manjeet Singh v. Union of India

1. Two prayers are made in the writ petition. The first is that a direction be issued to the respondents to amend petitioner's paramount carel. The second is ·to quash the order da~ed 17.1.2011 pursuant where to petitioner has been posted With DRDO,,, 2, As we are given to understand, paramount card contains the service particulars of a force personnel and learned counsel for respondents states that if any discrepancies are noted in the paramount card, the same would be corrected. learned counsel assures that the paramount card of the petitioner would correc!'y reflect the service profile of the petitioner. ! 2011:DHC:16440-DB -"1I r­ I "\1,!.,... " r.... ' l~ i '< -I,~ - - ".r,....,'" I I I ~'- ~

3. As regards the second prayer. we note that vide order dated, 17.1.2011. petitioner. holding rank of Colonel in the Indian Army, has been posted to DRDO. We find that on his posting to DRDO, · petitioner has made a representation to the Military Secretary Branch and raised a grievance that the same has not been decided till date.

4. learned counsel for the respondents states that Ithe representation has not been routed through proper channel. '

5. This would be too bureaucratic an approach i.e. requi~ing • channels to be followed,

6. Thus, with the consent of the parties we dispose of.,:the instant writ petition directing the concerned officer of the military · branch to treat the instant writ petition as a representation to I him as per proper channel and de'cide the same pertaining to petitioner's grievance of being posted to DRDO. Decision would • be taken and communicated to the petitioner within 3 months from today.

7. We clarify that if the petitioner'is aggrieved by the decision, remedies as per law can be availed of. I

8. Dasti. ~Q-1 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J ~ - ~ILGAUR,J