Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2078 (DEL)

TAPASH DATT v. CHAIRMAN INDIAN OIL CORPORATIO

2006-11-13

J.P.SINGH, MUKUL MUDGAL

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of counsel for the parties this LPA is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) THE impugned order of learned Single Judge reads as under:-"before filing the present petition, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petitioner, bearing WP ( C) No. 5189/2001, which was disposed of by a division Bench of this Court vide an order dated 18. 11. 2005 passed in LPA no. 700/2004 with certain directions. One of the directions being that the matter be placed before the review Departmental Promotion Committee for re-examination of the case of the petitioner for promotion with effect from 1992 till 2000. Such a review DPC was constituted by the respondent which met on 24. 1. 2006 and decided as under:"the Review DPC re-examined your case without taking into account any adverse remarks relevant to your appraisal reports for the years 1991 to 1999. The review DPC did not consider that there existed any ground to change the decision taken by the earlier DPCs. "according to the petitioner, the Review DPC was not held in accordance with law in as much as appraisal reports for the years 1989-91 have not been considered. The learned Single Judge held as under:"in the opinion of this Court, the directions of this Court passed in LPA no. 700/2004 stands fully complied with and merely because the decision of the dpc is not favourable to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the same is not in accordance with law. This court, therefore, finds no merits in the present petition. Petition, as such, is dismissed and CM 7182/2006 stands disposed of. " ( 3 ) THE plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that issue raised in the writ petition has not been dealt with and in particular the grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 18. 11. 2005 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 700/2004 was in fact not complied with. " ( 3 ) THE plea of the learned counsel for the appellant is that issue raised in the writ petition has not been dealt with and in particular the grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 18. 11. 2005 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 700/2004 was in fact not complied with. We have gone through the order of learned Single Judge and have noted that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the question whether the plea of non-appraisal of reports for the years 1989-91 ought or ought not to have been considered by the respondent in compliance of the directions of the Division Bench which are as under :"it is made clear that the case of the petitioner for promotion shall be considered in the said meeting in terms of the statement made today and in accordance with law. "3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 30. 5. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 16th January, 2007. The learned Single Judge will deal with this issue and whether the order dated 18. 11. 2005 passed by division Bench of this Court has been complied with or not by the respondent. The appeal stands disposed of.