how I can get fast justice as the authorities took 8 months to reject my appeal( the top management of PSU) Should I file a fresh Appeal with Competent authority citing the Supreme court ruling/ Guidelines or forced to go to High court and claim compensation also for willful default by management.
You cn file a writ petition before high court. For your information reproduced below is the gist of writ decided in
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER
Judgment delivered on: October 01, 2014
W.P. (C) No. 5649/2013
SHRI TARSEM KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.N. Kaul, Advocate
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocates.
Hence such noncommunication
is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public
servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the
concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the
representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold
that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one
who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be
summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal
from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and
transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public
servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards
its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.”
21. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents have not denied the
fact that the representation dated 02.08.2010 of the petitioner was not
decided by the authority higher than the one who was an Accepting Officer,
although that was not the case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in taking a
view that the order dated 17th February 2011, passed by the DG, CISF, who
was an Accepting Officer in the case of petitioner, cannot stand the test of
legal scrutiny it deserves to be outright rejected. The said order also records
though, that the officer had preferred a representation dated 02.08.2010 to
the DG, CISF, whereas in reality the petitioner’s representation was
addressed to the President of India. The order dated 17.02.2011 is also a
non-speaking order, and the same itself exemplifies the non application of
mind on the part of the concerned authority in not dealing with the
objections raised by the petitioner to challenge his ‘Average’ grading of
ACR in 2008-2009.
22. We, however, do not find ourselves in agreement with the contention
raised by counsel that the said adverse ACR of 2008-2009 should be treated
as non est in case of the petitioner and the directions be given to the
respondents to hold a review DPC for considering the case of the petitioner
for his promotion to the senior rank of Senior Commandant against the
vacancies for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 by treating the said ACR
of 2008-2009 as non est. On this legal position we are fortified by the
Supreme Court decision in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union Of India & Anr.,
(2008) 8 SCC 725, and the recent decision given by the three Judge Bench in
Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others, (2013) 9 SCC 573.
23. In the light of the above decisions and also considering the fact that
the petitioner is due for his retirement during this year only, we deem it
appropriate to direct that :-
a) The petitioner shall file his representation afresh to challenge his
‘below benchmark’ grading in the ACRs for the years 2008-2009 before the
b) The representation so filed by the petitioner shall be considered by an
officer higher in rank to that of an Accepting Officer and the representation
of the petitioner shall be decided by the Competent Authority within a
period of four weeks from the date of this order.
c) If his entry is upgraded, the appellant shall be considered for
promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
within two months thereafter;
d) If the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should
be given the benefit of seniority from such date along with arrears of pay
and all other consequential benefits.
24. With aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed. No costs.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.