Facts
The applicant, an employee of the Delhi Jal Board and a person with benchmark disabilities, sought out-of-turn promotion under both the Sportsman and disability quotas.
Source reference: p.2He previously filed OA No. 226/2023, where the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide his representation via a reasoned and speaking order.
Source reference: p.2-3While a speaking order was issued on 01.05.2024, the applicant alleged it failed to consider the Disability Commissioner's orders and relevant Office Memorandums (OMs) regarding reservation in promotion.
Source reference: p.3Subsequent representations dated 08.07.2025 and 20.02.2026 remained unanswered.
Source reference: p.3The applicant filed the present OA seeking to quash the 2024 order and secure promotion effective from 26.10.2014.
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether the respondents failed to consider relevant legal frameworks, specifically the orders of the Disability Commissioner and OMs regarding disability reservation, in their speaking order dated 01.05.2024.
Source reference: p.32. Whether the respondents are required to pass a fresh reasoned order on the applicant's pending representations in light of the Government of India OM dated 17.05.2022.
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
The Tribunal referenced the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022, which clarifies the legal position regarding reservation in promotion for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities.
Source reference: p.3It further applied the principle of administrative law requiring authorities to dispose of representations through reasoned and speaking orders when directed by a judicial body or when statutory/policy rights are invoked.
Source reference: p.3Reasoning
The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the merits of the promotion claim, focusing instead on the respondents' failure to address the applicant's recent representations.
Source reference: p.3It observed that the applicant’s claim regarding the 17.05.2022 OM—which post-dates his original grievance but clarifies the reservation policy—remained unaddressed by the respondents.
Source reference: p.3The court reasoned that since the representations dated 08.07.2025 and 20.02.2026 were still pending, the interests of justice would be served by directing a time-bound administrative review rather than a direct judicial intervention on the promotion itself at this stage.
Source reference: p.3Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage without a merit-based ruling.
It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law.
Source reference: p.3This direction must be complied with within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: p.3No orders as to costs were made.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
Satbir RanavsDELHI JAL BOARD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in