AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
This is first time that we have come across an order of the type under challenge in the present writ petition, as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1, on 31 July 2026 in OA 2920/2026. It reads thus:
“Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking a direction to the respondents to decide his representation dated 07.05.2026, by way of which he is seeking functional rank of Inspector.
2.We note that in Delhi Police, no such post of functional rank of Inspector exists. This was a practice some time ago that the Commissioners were granting promotions on functional basis. This practice has been frowned upon by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide D.O. No. 14014/09/2022-UTP dated 21.07.2022.
3.Since the representation itself seeks relief which is not tenable in law, the OA is dismissed. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
4.Registry is directed to assign an appropriate number to the OA.”
We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was certainly not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s prayer, which was limited to a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation.
This is not a case where the representation was totally frivolous or vexatious, for the Tribunal to take as drastic a view as it has. The Tribunal should have been alive to the fact that, under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, ordinarily the limitation for approaching the Tribunal commences from a date when an order is passed on the representation by the employee concerned.
Besides, we find, somewhat strangely, that the Tribunal has not even held that there was any order scrapping the post of Inspector to which the petitioner aspired. What is stated is that the practice had been “frowned upon by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide a DO dated 21 July 2022”.
Ms. Bahuli Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, in fact, the DO dated 21 July 2022 has not scrapped the post of Inspector and that there are judicial authorities to that effect.
In the circumstances, we issue notice, returnable forthwith. Notice is accepted by Mr. Piyush Beriwal, learned Counsel.
In the above circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 31 July 2026.
We direct the respondents to take a decision on the representation dated 7 May 2026, preferred by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today.
Needless to say, should the petitioner continue to remain aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his representation, the remedies available in law to the petitioner would remain reserved.
We also direct that, while deciding the representation, in case the petitioner has relied upon any judicial authorities, the decision would deal with such authorities.
We make it clear that the decision has to be reasoned and speaking in nature and communicated to the petitioner within 48 hours of its being taken.
The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Footnotes
- 1.“the Tribunal” hereinafter