2016 (8) TMI 1053 - HC - Customs

Petitioner seeks promotion, challenges seniority list, requests promotion for another employee, court allows withdrawal

The petitioner sought promotion to Assistant General Manager and challenged a seniority list, citing disparities in promotions compared to another ... Withdrawal of petition - Liberty to make representation - Mandated timeline for decision by administrative authorityWithdrawal of petition - Liberty to make representation - Mandated timeline for decision by administrative authority - Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a detailed representation and directions to the respondent to decide the representation within a stipulated time and communicate the decision. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner, after making submissions regarding alleged promotional and seniority grievances, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to make a detailed representation to the employer within one week. The respondent undertook to decide the representation on advance notice. The Court accepted the withdrawal and gave binding directions: the petitioner shall file a detailed representation within one week; the respondent shall decide the representation within three weeks from receipt; and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. No adjudication on the merits of the promotional or seniority claims was undertaken by the Court. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted liberty to represent within one week; respondent directed to decide representation within three weeks and communicate the decision within one week thereafter.Final Conclusion: The writ petition and pending application are dismissed as withdrawn; the petitioner may file a detailed representation within one week, which the respondent shall decide within three weeks of receipt and communicate within one further week. Issues:Petition under Article 226 seeking promotion and quashing of draft seniority list.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition seeking directions for promotion to the grade of Assistant General Manager and quashing of a seniority list. The petitioner highlighted the disparity in promotions between them and another employee, respondent No.3, who was promoted to Senior Manager and then Assistant General Manager. The petitioner argued that promotions were not in compliance with the Rules. The petitioner requested respondent No.3's promotion as Deputy General Manager (DGM) based on a concluded DPC. The petitioner's senior counsel sought to withdraw the petition to make a detailed representation to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1's advocate assured that the representation would be decided within three weeks. The court allowed the withdrawal of the petition with the condition that a detailed representation must be made within a week and respondent No.1's decision communicated within a week after that.