SUSHILA VEL  Vs AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR.Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2024
+ W.P.(C) 3801/2024
SUSHILA VEL ….. Petitioner
versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ANR. ….. Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranaynath Jha and Mr. Pratap Singh Rawat, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Digvijay Rai and Mr. Archit Mishra, Advocates for R-1 with Mr. Yatinder Chaudhary, Law Officer (AAI).
Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Nippun Sharma, Advocates for R-2.
Mr. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Govt pleader for UOI with Mr. Aayush Agrawal, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 15603/2024 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3801/2024 & CM APPL. 15604/2024 (Explanation of maintainability of writ petition)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-
�a) Writ of Certiorari and/or any other Writ, Order or Direction, thereby quashing the decision conveyed vide impugned letter dated 11.01.2023 bearing ref. no. A.60011/15/2022-ES-1/54 issued by the Respondent No.1 and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to remove the Petitioner�s pay anomaly and fix her basic pay taking into account her seniority which is more than Smt. Sulekha Sethi;
b) Directions to Respondent No.1 to process the representation made by the Petitioner vide its various letters regarding the issue of anomaly and expeditiously resolve the anomaly, thereby increasing the basic pay of the Petitioner in accordance with law in a time bound manner with consequential and pensionary benefits;
c) Directions to Respondent No.1 to relook into the seniority list of Manager (PS) dated 01.09.2022 by taking into account the seniority of the Petitioner and redraw the same by placing her higher than Smt. Sulekha Sethi, who is junior to the Petitioner;
d) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon�ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.�
4. Issue Notice.
5. Notice is accepted by Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and by Ms. Anjana Gosain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
6. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits by referring to the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 that the present petition may be directed to be treated as a representation, which the Competent Authority would consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. Upon such submissions of Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also has no objection to the same.
8. In view of the above, the present writ petition be treated as a representation by the respondent No.1 which the Competent Authority may consider and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.
9. The date, time and venue shall be informed to the petitioner, well in advance by the office of the Competent Authority.
10. Needless to state that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to his remedies in accordance with law, upon being furnished with the copy of the order, which would be passed by the Competent Authority.
11. In view of the above, the present petition along with pending application is disposed of.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MARCH 14, 2024/nd

W.P.(C) 3801/2024 Page 2 of 3