Disposed

Mahesh Singh Nimesh & Ors. v. P.K. Gupta & Ors.

Delhi HC3 May 2016W.P.(C)/3746/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Bench of the High Court of Delhi allowed an application by the respondent to delete the word "review" from a previous order. The court clarified that this deletion does not impact the non-applicant's pending claim for retrospective promotion.

What did the court decide?

Deletion of the word "review" from the appellate order dated 3rd May 2016 allowed; petitioner retained liberty to agitate promotion claim.

Mahesh Singh Nimesh & Ors. Vs P.K. Gupta & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~Special Bench

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P. (C) No. 3746/2016

¶4

MAHESH SINGH NIMESH AND OTHERS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

P.K. GUPTA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents Through Ms. Biji Rajesh, Advocate for respondent No. 1- NDMC.

¶7

Mr. Gaurav Ahlawat, Advocate for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 2-UPSC.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.09.2018 CM No. 16881/2018

¶11

This is an application by respondent No.1, North Delhi Municipal Corporation for deletion of word “review” before the expression “DPC” from the statement of the counsel for the said respondent as recorded in paragraph 3 of the order dated 3^rd May, 2016 and in the next sentence in the paragraph 3 of the order dated 3^rd May, 2016. It is stated that the counsel had stated that DPC would be held in accordance with the seniority list dated 10^th March, 2016. Accordingly, this DPC would consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).

¶12

Counsel for the non-applicant submits that a DPC was held in 2016 and the non-applicant has been granted promotion to the post of Executive

¶13

Engineer (Civil) from 2016. The non-applicant is agitating the issue that he is entitled to promotion with retrospective effect from 2007-08. He submits that DPC was held in 2008 for vacancies of 1997-98.

¶14

We take the statement made by the counsel for the respondent-North Delhi Municipal Corporation on record and would observe that the word “review” mentioned in paragraph 3 while recording her statement and the next sentence would be treated as deleted. We, however, clarify that deletion of word “review” would not in any way adversely affect the plea and contention raised by the non-applicant that he is entitled to promotion with effect from 2007-08. Nothing in this order would be construed as expression of opinion on the said controversy and issue. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the issue of promotion with retrospective effect in accordance with law.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶17

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

¶18

SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 NA/VKR

Mahesh Singh Nimesh & Ors. v. P.K. Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Singh Nimesh & Ors. v. P.K. Gupta & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Aggarwal Vs the Commissioner, N.D.M.C. and Ors.

Raj Kumar Tanti Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Malik Cable T.v.Network Vs the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Rajinder Kakkad Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidya Bharati School Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

M/S. Himalaya Communications Ltd. Vs Northern Railways

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary (Finance) & Ors.

Philips India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Tax (System Branch)

Sukhdin Verma & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Ravendra Garg Vs UOI and Ors.

Shyam Sunder Gupta & Ors. Vs the Secretary Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board

Rahul-I Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Kapil Kumar Setia and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs High Court of Delhi through Its Registrar General and Anr.