Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to determine/fix the seniority of the petitioner on the post of Inspector when other similarly situated Sub Inspectors were promoted on the post of Inspector and place the petitioner at correct place in the seniority list of Inspector.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 126 has decided a similar controversy and has placed reliance on paragraph 2 of the said judgment which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:-
"2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this appeal must succeed. There is no dispute that during the pendency of this appeal the appellant's representation against the adverse entries has been allowed and these entries have been expunged from his service record. Since the adverse entries were expunged the State Government by its order dated January 24, 1991 granted Selection Grade to the appellant with effect from the date he takes over charge. We fail to appreciate the view taken by the State Government. Once the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were expunged the appellant is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 the date on which he was eligible for grant of Selection Grade. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and modify the order of the State Government dated January 24, 1991 and direct that the appellant shall be treated in Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 and he will be entitled to all other consequential benefits with effect from that date. As regards appellant's further promotion, he will be considered for promotion in accordance with Rules."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in this regard, the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 25.6.2019 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) before the respondent No.3 and prays that the respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the same within a specified time.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not oppose the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the competent authority.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 25.6.2019 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Pachhere/-