Dismissed

Roopi Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2016W.P.(C)/7739/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order notes that the petitioner seeks dismissal based on a medical certificate for leave. It recalls a prior order directing the petitioner to join duty or face relief. The courtdeclines to comment on submissions regarding the medical certificate, directs the petitioner to withdraw and file a representation for consideration, and dismisses the petition as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner directed to withdraw pecilia representation for consideration by respondent authorities.

Roopi Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7739/2016 & CM. No. 31960/2016

¶4

ROOPI SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. P.K. Mittal, Ms. Asha Garg, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. for UOI with Mr. Arvind Sharma, DC (BSF)

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 02.09.2016

¶6

The petitioner has yet again approached this Court by way of this writ petition, the earlier being writ petition bearing WP(C) no.6917/2016, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on August 8, 2016. On the said date, statement was made by the learned counsel for the respondents that a movement order shall be issued to the petitioner giving him 15 days time to join the place of appointment.

¶7

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon a certificate issued on 26^th August, 2016 whereby the Doctor concerned has recommended leave of six weeks.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that the

¶9

WP(C) 7739/2016 page 2 of 2

¶10

respondents are not privy to the certificate so issued. He further states that the leave due to the petitioner has been exhausted. He also states the absence / non-joining of the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Section 19 of the BSF Act.

¶11

We refrain from saying anything on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Suffice to state, the order dated August 8, 2016 is very clear. During the course of submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that since the respondents are not privy to the certificate issued by the Doctor recommending leave for six weeks, he shall withdraw the writ petition and make a representation enclosing therewith the certificate now issued by the Doctor for consideration and appropriate orders of the competent authority. If that be so, the representation, if any, to be made by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent authorities, who shall pass the order in that regard.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶13

INDIRA BANERJEE, J

¶14

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶15

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016/RN

¶16

WP(C) 7739/2016

¶17

page 2 of 2

Roopi Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopi Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiaz Ahmed Ansari Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Inderjeet Singh Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation (Mcd)

Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ebiz.Com Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ameet Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kamlesh Shukla & Ors. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Hasham Vs the Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

New Delhi Television Limited Vs Comm. of Sales Tax & Others

Mahender Singh Dhillon Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dwijendra Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Havildar Sudhir Borate Vs Union of India & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mukat Pipes Limited Vs Union of India

Ram Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors.