Reserved judgment by former authority cannot be compelled after cessation of office, as time-extension notification applies only to current incumbents.

A notification extending time to pronounce reserved judgments was treated as applicable only to officers who continued to hold the office and had not yet delivered their decisions. Once a new member was appointed, the earlier officer on additional charge ceased to be the competent authority for New Delhi and could not be compelled to pronounce a judgment in a matter heard earlier. The Court found no enforceable legal right or breached notification requiring a former incumbent, after leaving office, to deliver the reserved decision, and the authorities cited for the contrary view were held inapplicable on their facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether a member of the Adjudicating Authority who had heard the matter but ceased to hold the post upon appointment of a new member could still be directed to pronounce the reserved judgment, and whether the notification extending time for pronouncement could be applied to such a case.

Analysis: The notification extending the time to pronounce reserved judgments was held to apply only to officers who continued to hold the concerned post and had not yet pronounced their decisions. Once the new member was appointed, the earlier officer, who had only been given additional charge, ceased to function as the competent authority for New Delhi. The Court also held that the appellants could not show any enforceable legal right or breach of any notification requiring a former incumbent, after ceasing to hold office, to pronounce a judgment in matters heard earlier. The authorities cited by the appellants were found inapplicable on their facts.

Conclusion: The request to compel the former additional-charge member to pronounce the reserved judgment was rejected, and the challenge to the dismissal of the writ petitions failed.

---