Roshan Lal v. DG CISF

Delhi High Court · 23 Sep 2022 · 2022:DHC:3865-DB
Suresh Kumar Kait; Saurabh Banerjee
W.P.(C) 13799/2022
2022:DHC:3865-DB
administrative other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the CISF to decide the petitioner's posting representation by a reasoned order within a stipulated time, without granting substantive relief.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 13799/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: September 23, 2022
W.P.(C) 13799/2022 & CM APPL. 42164-42165/2022
ROSHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate
VERSUS
DG CISF & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Ms. Swati, Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Kashish Bajaj and
Mr.Shivam Gaur, Advocates with SI Prahlad Singh, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. By way of the present petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:a) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, DG CISF, New Delhi, to post the petitioner in his home sector Units preferably within 200 Kms radius of his Home town or any other NCR/North Sector Units in terms of the circular dated 25.9.2017 as he is now in the verge of retirement. b) Direct the respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the seniority lists prepared for the posting of ASI/ Exe at North Sector on account of their entailment on the basis of the relevant guidelines and the method of giving merits. 2022:DHC:3865-DB W.P.(C) 13799/2022 c) Direct the respondents to pay cost of this litigation to the petitioner.

2. For the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner made a representation dated 27.05.2022 to the respondents, however, till date, the respondents have not decided the same.

3. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to take a final decision by way of a reasoned order on the representation dated 27.05.2022 filed by the petitioner in view of the circular dated 25.09.2017 within four weeks.

4. The decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

5. Needless to state that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

6. With directions as aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications are also disposed of as infructuous.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (SAURABH BANERJEE)

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 23, 2022