High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 10 MAN CK 0010

Sreejith V.P, Warrant Officer vs Union Of India

Manipur High Court · Decided on 10 October 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.V. Muralidaran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (c) No. 684 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 341 words

MV Muralidaran, J

Since the petitioner who approached this Court and filed this present writ petition and seeking the prayers as follows:

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Naib Subedar with ante-date seniority i.e. w.e.f. 1/2/2012;

(ii) In the interim, direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 27/7/2016; and

(iii) Pass any further or others or directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper as the ends of justice and equity may call for.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Naib subedar with ante-date seniority with effect from 1.2.2012 but no action was taken by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.07.2016 to the respondents.

Therefore, when the respondents have not considered the representation dated 27.07.2016 submitted by the petitioner, he approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

When the matter is taken up today, Mr. S. Sameerjit, learned CGC appears before this Court and filed his counter along with the order dated 28.09.2017 in which it is stated that the petitioner was promoted from 1.12.2017 but the petitioner's counsel prayed that he should be given promotion with effect from 1.2.2012 whereas the respondents have given promotion only from 1.12.2017. Therefore, he prays before this Court that atleast the respondents may be directed to consider his representation dated 27.07.2016.

Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted representation on 27.07.2016 and after the said representation the promotion order dated 28.09.2017 was issued by the respondents. Therefore if the petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 28.09.2017 (Annexure-R2), he shall workout his remedy separately.

Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to challenge the order dated 28.09.2017 by seeking his promotion with effect from 1.2.2012.

With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.09.2017 in accordance with law.