Ravi Kant Thakral v. Bank of Baroda

Delhi High Court · 28 May 2018 · 2018:DHC:3534
Sunil Gaur
W.P.(C) 5867/2018
2018:DHC:3534
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a promotion order by directing the petitioner to file a representation with the respondent bank, which must consider and respond to it within a stipulated timeframe.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 5867/2018
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: May 28, 2018
W.P.(C) 5867/2018 & CM 22852/2018
RAVI KANT THAKRAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Modi, Advocate
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhupendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. Although petitioner has retired, but he is aggrieved by impugned promotion order of 9th April, 2018 (Annexure P-8) which has been issued from Mumbai. No Representation has been filed by petitioner against impugned promotion.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a Representation in respect of impugned promotion would be made to the Executive Director of respondent-Bank at Mumbai within a period of two weeks from today. While leaving the question of territorial jurisdiction open, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the application with permission to petitioner to file a Representation against impugned promotion order (Annexure P-8) within two weeks. If any such Representation is received by the Executive Director of respondent-Bank, then it be effectively 2018:DHC:3534 W.P.(C) 5867/2018 considered and a speaking response thereto be given within a period of eight weeks and the fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

3. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be given dasti to petitioner’s counsel.

JUDGE MAY 28, 2018 s