The High Court of Delhi dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited against an order of the tribunal that awarded teaching allowance to the respondent. The court held that the orders required no modification on the cited facts.
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.
$~7.
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Saket Sikri & Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocates.
versus
VED PRAKASH GUPTA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. B.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 along with respondent No. 1 in person. Ms. Abha Malhotra, Mr. Nitin & Mr. Kushal Sharma, Advocates for respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
O R D E R % 14.01.2016
It is pointed out that the total amount involved, which has to be paid to the respondent No. 1, is about Rs.1,50,000/-.
position that a Principal would be entitled to teaching allowance if he is a faculty member, i.e., who imparts training or teaches as is mandate of the Office Memorandum dated 31st March, 1987.
dismissing the review application RA No. 230/2014 requires modification or interference.
The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 14, 2016 VKR
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED
VED PRAKASH GUPTA
ANR
SANJIV KHANNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
