The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of pension and gratuity benefits. The petition was rejected as not maintainable on the ground of an alternative remedy being available before the Central Administrative Tribunal, relying on L. Chandra Kumar.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2696 of 2022
Petitioner :- Brahmpal Singh And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Navin Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
" Sri Navin Chandra Srivastava, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1 to 3.
Issue notice to respondent no.4.
Steps be taken within a week.
All the respondents will file their counter affidavits within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this petition on 18th May, 2022 as fresh case.
Order Date :- 8.4.2022 "
Order Date :- 24.5.2022 YK
Digitally signed by YASHWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.05.25 11:02:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in this High Court given the existence of an alternative remedy under the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and OthersApplied¶15
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, 1997 (3) SCC 261 · Who else cites this
Brahmpal Singh
Unknown Second Petitioner
Union Of India
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
