Disposed

Kamal Kant & Ors. v. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authourity (Apeda) & Anr.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/1134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning grievances regarding recruitment regulations and promotion requirements for Agricultural officers. The Court allowed the petitioners to make a consolidated representation to a proposed committee and granted liberty to seek further remedies if aggrieved, based on submissions by both parties.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to seek further remedies upon disposal of consolidated representation and outcome of the proposed committee.

Kamal Kant & Ors. Vs Agricultural and Processed Food… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1134/2018, CM APPL 4771/2018

¶4

KAMAL KANT & ORS ..... Petitioners

¶5

Through Mr. Shadan Farasat with Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHOURITY (APEDA) & ANR

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

Through Ms. Sonali Malhotra with Mr. Amit Sanduja, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Suparna Srivastava with Ms. Sanjna Dua, Advocates for R-2.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

% 16.02.2018

¶13

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners

¶14

seek the following prayers :-

¶15

Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring ‘Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, (Recruitment) Revised Regulations, 2011 as being in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India in so far as it does not include the post of Office Executive as a feeder cadre to the post of Assistant General Manager.

¶16

Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to amend the ‘Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, (Recruitment) Revised Regulations, 2011 so as to include the post of Office Executive as a feeder cadre to the post of Assistant

¶17

General Manager and give the petitioners the benefit of this including the consequent seniority from the date they respectively starting working at the post of office executive; AND/OR

¶18

Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring that the minimum number of years of regular service required to get promoted from a post with grade pay of 2800/- to a post with grade pay of 4200/- being 3 years and the minimum number of years of regular service required to get promoted from a post with grade pay of 2400/- to a post with grade pay of 4200/- being 5 years, under the ‘Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, (Recruitment) Revised Regulations, 2011, is violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to amend the ‘Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, (Recruitment) Revised Regulations, 2011 so as to increase the minimum number of years of regular service required to get promoted from a post with grade pay of 2800/- to a post with grade pay of 4200/- to at least 6 years and to increase the minimum number of years of regular service required to get promoted from a post with grade pay of 2400/- to a post with grade pay of 4200/to at least 10 years as per guidelines issued vide office memorandum dated 24.03.2009 by department of personal and training.

¶20

One of the main grievances of the petitioners is that despite making various representations to the respondents, no response has been received. Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are willing to form a committee of senior officials to consider the grievances of the petitioners.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would make a consolidated representation to the committee and seek a direction that the committee should give them a personal hearing when not more than two persons

¶22

would attend and a direction that the representation/order be communicated to the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation. Counsel further submits that the petitioners would make a consolidated representation within two weeks from today. He further submits that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the final order so passed they would seek such remedy available in accordance with law.

¶23

In view of the stand taken by counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms with liberty as prayed. CM APPL 4771/2018

¶24

No orders are called for in view of the order passed in the writ petition.

¶25

The application stands disposed of.

¶26

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶27

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 16, 2018 ck/

¶29

W.P.(C) 1134/2018

¶30

3/3

Kamal Kant & Ors. v. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authourity (Apeda) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kant & Ors. v. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authourity (Apeda) & 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

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Public Information Officer Tihar Jail Vs Om Prakash Gandhi and Anr.

Ranjan Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Investor Protection Group and Anr. Vs Security Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Natwar Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bal Kishan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rita Marwah Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

Vijay Mohan Vs Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohd. Lal Vs New-Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.