Pradeep Kumar vs.the District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters)

Pradeep Kumar vs The District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters)

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 24, 2018

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1212258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1212258
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 24, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Kumar

Advocate Mr. Rajat Aneja, Ms. Rashmi Verma

Respondent

The District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters)

Advocate Ms. Palak Rohmetra

Excerpt

.....claimed in this petition, petitioner had made a representation on 25th september, 2017, followed by a reminder on 17th november, 2017 (annexure p-7 colly). according to petitioner’s counsel, there is no response to these representations. however, it is submitted that the case of petitioner is fully covered by o.m.no.22011/4/2007-estt.(d) of 28th april, 2014 issued by department of personnel & training (annexure p-9) and by the relevant extract of swami’s compilation on seniority and promotion (annexure p-8). w.p.(c) 738/2018 page 1 of 2 2. since petitioner’s representation of 25th september, 2017, (annexure p-7 colly) has not been responded to, therefore, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent to pass a speaking order thereon within eight weeks.3. at this stage, counsel for petitioner submits that this writ petition be treated as a representation and speaking order be passed thereon. instead of adopting such a course, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to make a concise representation to respondent within a week. if such a representation is received by respondent, it be considered and decided within eight weeks by passing a speaking order. the fate of representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.3. with aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed of. sunil gaur (judge) january24 2018 r w.p.(c) 738/2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: January 24, 2018 W.P.(C) 738/2018 & C.M. 3117/2018 1. PRADEEP KUMAR ........ Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja & Ms. Rashmi Verma, Advocates Versus THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HEADQUARTERS) Through: Mr.Sanjay Dewan & Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for respondent No.1 ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT ORAL... Petitioner

was promoted as Judicial Assistant on 23rd August, 2017. In this petition, promotion to the post of Judicial Assistant is claimed w.e.f. 13th June, 2008, while claiming parity with employees at Serial Nos. 170 to 183 (except Sl. No.177) in the Order of 23rd August, 2017 (Annexure P-6). To seek the relief claimed in this petition, petitioner had made a Representation on 25th September, 2017, followed by a reminder on 17th November, 2017 (Annexure P-7 colly). According to petitioner’s counsel, there is no response to these Representations. However, it is submitted that the case of petitioner is fully covered by O.M.No.22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) of 28th April, 2014 issued by Department of Personnel & Training (Annexure P-9) and by the relevant extract of Swami’s compilation on Seniority and Promotion (Annexure P-8). W.P.(C) 738/2018 Page 1 of 2 2. Since petitioner’s Representation of 25th September, 2017, (Annexure P-7 colly) has not been responded to, therefore, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent to pass a speaking order thereon within eight weeks.

3. At this stage, counsel for petitioner submits that this writ petition be treated as a Representation and speaking order be passed thereon. Instead of adopting such a course, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to make a concise Representation to respondent within a week. If such a Representation is received by respondent, it be considered and decided within eight weeks by passing a speaking order. The fate of Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies, as available in law, if need be.

3. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed of. SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) JANUARY24 2018 r W.P.(C) 738/2018 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Pradeep Kumar vs The District & Sessions Judge (Headquarters) Same Subject Land Acquisition