Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 949 (DEL)

GIRISH KUMAR v. UOI

2006-05-22

MUKUL MUDGAL, P.K.BHASIN

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) RULE DB. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition challenges the order dated 13th January, 2004 in OA no. 2563/2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner who at the relevant time was working as Divisional railway Manager had challenged the orders of the respondents dated 3. 10. 2003 and 10. 10. 2003 transferring the petitioner from Adra to Gorakhpur as an S. A. G. Officer (Mechanical) though not on the post of DRM though his emoluments continued to be same. The principle challenge of the petitioner is that the impugned judgment of the CAT deprives the petitioner an opportunity for even being considered for the post of AGM. ( 4 ) ON 19th April, 2006 this court recorded the following statement made on behalf of the respondents:-"the principle grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. C. Mittal is that his challenge in the OA was merely treated as a challenge to a mere order of transfer. In fact, it is his grievance that the petitioner while being transferred from the post of DRM had been deprived of an opportunity of being promoted to the post of AGM. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Gangwani has pointed out his counter affidavit filed in this court to submit that the transfer does not adversely affect the promotion prospects of the petitioner. He had further stated that the petitioner will have the promotional prospect including the possibility of the promotion of the petitioner to the post of AGM from the post of SAG. List on 22nd May, 2006. " ( 5 ) MR. Gangwani, the learned counsel for the respondents on instructions states today that the petitioner will be considered for the post of AGM in his turn. ( 6 ) IN view of the above statement to the effect that the petitioner will be considered for the post of AGM in his own turn, no further grievance of the petitioner survives. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, since the petitioner s grievance about being denied consideration for the post of the AGM has been redressed the writ petition has become infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly. .