RAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of Representation (Annexure P-5), had sought fixation of his seniority and the said Representation has been rejected by respondent vide impugned order of 16th February, 2018 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order (Annexure P-6) on the ground that petitioner had claimed parity with Rishi Sharma and Kali Ram, but the impugned order nowhere deals with the parity aspect. It is pointed out by petitioner's counsel that as per promotion order of 28th January, 2012 (Annexure P-4), petitioner's seniority was to be fixed in due course and not from the date of this order.

(3.) Upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner has not been considered in impugned order while rejecting petitioner's Representation.