Disposed

Insp Monalisa Mohanty v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a CRPF water sports manager de-inducted vide signal dated 02.05.2024, seeks interim relief. Court directs respondents to decide her pending representation within three weeks via a reasoned order and grants her additional time to report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide petitioner's representation within three weeks via reasoned order; time granted till 04.09.2024 to report.

Insp Monalisa Mohanty Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11412/2024 & CM APPL. 47361/2024 –Stay. INSP MONALISA MOHANTY .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Ajit Kakkar, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr.Nitinjya Chaudhary with Mr.Rahul Mourya, Advs & Ms.Vidhi Gupta, GP. Mr.Saurav Bhushan, L.O.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR O R D E R % 20.08.2024

¶7

The petitioner, who was working as Manager cum Chief Coach of the Men and Women Central Water Sports Team in the CRPF has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶8

“(a) To pass a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the signals dated 02.05.2024.

¶9

(b) To pass a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue with the central team of the Water Sports as per the performance and as per the policy.”

¶10

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2024, vide which the petitioner is being de-inducted from the aforesaid post, she had made various representations, which remain undecided till date and, therefore, submits that for the present, the petitioner will be satisfied,

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:24:01

¶13

in case, the respondents are directed to decide the same in a time bound manner. He further prays that the petitioner be granted two weeks additional time to report at Headquarters of the 91^st Battalion in accordance with the impugned order.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that as per instructions, he has no objection to this limited request.

¶15

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 30.06.2024, a copy whereof has been annexed with the writ petition, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks. The petitioner is also granted time till 04.09.2024 to report at Headquarters of the 91^st Battalion in accordance with the impugned order.

¶16

Needless to state, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondents deciding her representation, it will be open for her to seek legal recourse as permissible in law.

¶17

REKHA PALLI, J

¶18

SHALINDER KAUR, J

¶19

AUGUST 20, 2024 sr

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2024 at 12:24:01

Insp Monalisa Mohanty v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Insp Monalisa Mohanty v. Union of India and 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

Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Naveen Arora Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Finolex Cables Limited Vs Telecommunication Consultants of India Limited & Anr.

Cesc Limited Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Sujata Kumari Vs National Testing Agency

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Mayank Dutt and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nitesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jawahar Lal Deka Vs Union of India and Ors.

Palendra Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

No 888558750 Ex. Ct Gd Kartar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anurag Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.