Petitioner sought increments citing the Supreme Court's KPTCL–Mundinamani judgment; with respondents' consent, writ petition disposed by directing them to consider his claim and pass reasoned orders within eight weeks.
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.
$~388
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: SI Prahlad Devender and SI Amit Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
CM APPL. 51325/2024—Exp.
W.P.(C) 12333/2024
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 06/09/2024 at 15:36:51
REKHA PALLI, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 /ss
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 06/09/2024 at 15:36:51
1 issue framed by the court
Should the respondents examine the petitioner's claim for due increments in light of the Supreme Court decision in Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director (Admn. & HR) KPTCL & Ors. versus C.P. Mundinamani & Ors.Relied on¶3
Civil Appeal No.2471/2023
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Kumar Phatak
Union of India
Rekha Palli
Shalinder Kaur
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
