1. Petitioner's Writ Petition No.29946(SS) of 2016 was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 10.04.2019 as under:-
"The petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent-Khadi Village Industries Commission, while working as Assistant Director, Grade-II, had represented to the Chief Executive Officer, Khadi and Village Industries Commission on 12.7.2016 praying that he be given benefits as were available to handicapped personnel under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and that he be given the promotion. In this regard, he has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.521 of 2008 : Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 30.6.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents were sitting over the representation and were not deciding the same.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Khadi and Village Industries Commission submitted that the Department would decide the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously after taking into account the relevant statutes and the laws laid down by the Courts.
Under such circumstances, the respondents, therefore, are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. If the petitioner is found eligible for promotion then he shall be given notional promotion from the date he was eligible. The fact that the petitioner had retired would not be a hindrance in the grant of the notional promotion.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
2. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by writ court, an order dated 12.07.2019 has been passed which has been placed on record as Anneuxre-4 to the contempt petition. It has been said that office memorandum dated 29.12.2005 does not provide reservation under Promotion quota for the physically handicapped category to the Group B post, therefore, the benefit of reservation under physically handicapped quota for promotion cannot be extended in the case of the petitioner.
3. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner's case for grant of promotion under physically handicapped quota got rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order is not in accordance with the direction issued by this Court.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. From perusal of aforesaid order dated 12.07.2019, it is evident that the authority has considered the relevant rules and it has been specifically said that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion under the physical handicapped quota. In view thereof, I do not find any substance in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, if the petitioner is still feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2019 taken in his case regarding promotion to Group-B post, it would be open to him to challenge the aforesaid order in appropriate proceedings before the competent Court/Forum, if law so permits and he is so advised.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 prateek