Disposed

Yogesh Nigam v. Jamia Millia Islamia

Delhi HC4 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/2683/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejected the petitioner's applications to re-open disposed writ petitions regarding pension benefits. It held that the previous order did not entitle the petitioner to file applications in disposed petitions to challenge the rejected representations and directed the challenge to be made in substantive proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applications disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the respondent's order in substantive proceedings.

Yogesh Nigam Vs Jamia Millia Islamia — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~50 & 51

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2683/2022 ( Disposed of )

¶4

YOGESH NIGAM .....Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Respondent + W.P.(C) 17659/2022 ( Disposed of ) YOGESH NIGAM .....Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA .....Respondent

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Ms. Shivali, Mr. Archit Verma and Mr. Abhishek Nagar, Advocates for petitioner. Mr. K.K. Mishra, ASC for JMI.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

% 17.04.2025 CM APPL. 22401/2025 in W.P.(C) 2683/2022 (for directions) CM APPL. 22317/2025 in W.P.(C) 17659/2022 (for directions)

¶15

The petitioner has filed these applications with a prayer for consideration of the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 04.11.2024. The prayers in the writ petition were as follows:

¶16

W.P.(C) 2683/2022:

¶17

“(i) Issue directions to the respondents to grant benefits of old pension

¶18

W.P.(C) 2683/2022 & W.P.(C) 17659/2022 Page 1 of 3

¶19

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 21/04/2025 at 12:47:03

¶20

scheme alongwith other benefits to the petitioner as he was appointed in the year 1987 and since then he is regularly working with the respondents;

¶21

(ii) Grant all consequential benefits pertaining to service to the petitioner alongwith interest;

¶22

(iii) To grant any other relief which may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

¶23

W.P.(C) 17659/2022:

¶24

“(i) Issue directions to the respondents to grant all benefits of MACP/ACP with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice;

¶25

(ii) Grant all consequential benefits pertaining to service to the petitioner alongwith interest;”

¶26

After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the

¶27

parties, the Court passed the following directions:

¶28

“6. In my view, the matter requires re-consideration by the Respondent and learned counsel for the Respondent fairly submits that he has no objection to the matter being reconsidered by the Respondent in light of the aforementioned judgments. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Respondent to re-consider the cases of the Petitioners and take a decision whether the Petitioners would be covered under the OPS taking into account their dates of appointments and the factum of their regularization as also the judgments referred to above and relied upon by the petitioners. The decision shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state, if the decision is in favour of the Petitioners, their cases will be processed for pensionary benefits under OPS. If for any reason, the decision is otherwise, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, which shall be communicated to the Petitioners and they will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies, if so advised.”

¶29

Pursuant to this order, the petitioner made representations to the respondent, which have been rejected by order dated 24.03.2025. It is the contention of the petitioner that the rejection of his representations is not in accordance with the order of this Court dated 04.11.2024. He has, therefore, filed the present applications.

¶30

Even if the contention of the petitioner is correct, I am of the view

¶31

W.P.(C) 2683/2022 & W.P.(C) 17659/2022 Page 2 of 3

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 21/04/2025 at 12:47:03

¶34

that it does not entitle him to file applications, in the disposed of writ petitions, for re-opening of the petitions. The order makes it clear that the writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions, and that the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies in the event of an adverse order. The orders passed by the respondent will now have to be challenged in substantive proceedings, rather than by way of applications in the disposed of writ petitions.

¶35

The applications are, therefore, disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid.

¶36

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶37

APRIL 17, 2025 SS/kb/

¶38

W.P.(C) 2683/2022 & W.P.(C) 17659/2022 Page 3 of 3

¶39

Yogesh Nigam v. Jamia Millia Islamia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Nigam v. Jamia Millia Islamia

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

P. B. David Vs the Estate Officer & Ors.

M/S Quess Corp Ltd. Vs Sh. Girdhari Kumar Sahu and Anr.

Shri Subrato Trivedi Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kailash Ajuja Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunny Kumar & Ors. Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Incred Financial Services Ltd. Vs Deputy Director,Directorate of Enforcement

Dr. Ritu Chowdhary Vs Aditi Mahavidyalaya and Others

Sandipan Khan Vs the Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Ors.

Statesman Mazdoor Union through Its General Secretary & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Prof. Rajendra P Kundu Vs Ambedkar University Delhi & Anr.

Mridul Rawat Vs Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University & Anr.

Shri Karan Chhabra & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Prof. Madan Mohan Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

D. S. Parashar Vs Union of India and Ors.