Disposed

Jodha Singh Rawat v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/9517/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning pay fixation and promotion to AAO. It granted liberty to approach for detailed pay fixation claim, directed respondents to consider a promotion representation with a speaking order, and issued timelines for filing representation and decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file fresh petition challenging letter dated 16.9.2014 for pay fixation. Directed to file representation for AAO promotion; respondents to decide and pass speaking order

Jodha Singh Rawat Vs Life Insurance… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 9517/2016

¶4

JODHA SINGH RAWAT ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Shakti Chand Sharma, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R

¶9

% 07.12.2016

¶10

Two reliefs are claimed in this writ petition. One is for fixation

¶11

of a particular scale of pay. Second is for grant of promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO).

¶12

So far as the relief of grant of fixation of pay at a particular pay scale is concerned, counsel appearing for the respondents has brought the attention of this Court to a communication dated 16.9.2014 addressed by the respondents to the petitioner giving reasons as to why the petitioner cannot be granted the fixation of pay at a particular pay scale as stated in this letter. Petitioner is present in person and states that he has received this letter.

¶13

This writ petition therefore without challenging the order/letter

¶14

W.P.(C) No.9517/2016 page 1 of 3

¶15

dated 16.9.2014 would not be maintainable because otherwise and taking the order/letter dated 16.9.2014 as correct, then, the petitioner will not be entitled to fixation of pay. So far as this relief is concerned, accordingly, counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition stating a detailed cause of action as to why petitioner is entitled to fixation of pay at a particular pay scale especially by challenging the order/letter dated 16.9.2014.

¶16

The second relief claimed by the petitioner is for promotion to the post of AAO. In this regard, counsel for the respondents states that petitioner has already made a representation for seeking promotion to the post of AAO for the year 2015-16, and counsel for the respondents states that this representation of the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of

¶17

AAO for the year 2015-16 will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the rules and a speaking order will be passed which will be communicated to the petitioner. If petitioner is still aggrieved, then, at that stage, petitioner can always file appropriate independent proceedings.

¶18

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid consent order allowing the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition but

¶19

W.P.(C) No.9517/2016 page 2 of 3

¶20

direction is issued to the respondents to decide the representation so far as promotion of the petitioner to the post of AAO is concerned, and on which order being passed if the petitioner is still aggrieved, then, petitioner can always challenge the same and include in that also challenge to the letter/order dated 16.9.2014 of the respondents rejecting the claim of the fixation of pay at a particular pay scale as claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶21

Let the petitioner file a comprehensive representation seeking benefit of promotion to the post of AAO within a period of two weeks from today, and the respondents will thereafter decide the representation by passing a speaking order within six weeks thereafter.

¶22

Writ petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

¶23

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

¶24

DECEMBER 07, 2016 Ne

¶25

page 3 of 3

¶26

W.P.(C) No.9517/2016

Jodha Singh Rawat v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jodha Singh Rawat v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Public Service Commission Vs Patil Bhushan Manohar & Ors.

Shobha Kaur Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Ravindra Singh Mann Vs Union of India & Ors.

Green Fields Public School Vs Mahinder Kumar

UOI & Anr. Vs the Defence Marine Engg. Tech. S

M/S Delhi Tourist Bus Service Vs Dayal Singh

Subhash Chand Dhigan Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shashi Bala Pathak Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shobha Kaur Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Jasvinder Kaur Vs Guru Harkishan Public School (New Delhi) Society & Ors.

Shri Daljit Singh Vs Dtc

Shamsher Singh Vs Delhi Technological University through It'S Vice Chancellor & Anr.

V T M Kabeer Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat

Sunita Kainth Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.