Disposed¶22

Suresh Mankoti v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1960/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

retirement age 57 versus 60; retiral benefits documents; writ of certiorari and mandamus; declaration of entitlement to retire at 60; Union of India & Ors.; Cheeli J Ratnam 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8573 (decided 24.11.2025); Bhim Singh Kothari W.P.(C) 18671/2025; Jai Prakash Mourya/Maurya & Anr. W.P.(C) 998/2026 (order dated 23.01.2026); Atul Chandrakant Dandekar & Ors W.P.(C) 19484/2025; petition and pending application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared entitled to retire at the age of 60; benefit of the judgments in Cheeli J Ratnam, Atul Chandrakant Dandekar & Ors and Jai Prakash Maurya & Anr. enures to him; petition and pending application disposed of. ¶22

Suresh Mankoti Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, against whom an order dated 18.06.2025 required submission of documents qua retiral benefits at the age of 57 years, is entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age with all consequential benefits.

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner is declared entitled to retire at the age of 60 years.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

As the petitioner is still working with the respondents, the benefit of the judgments in Cheeli J Ratnam (supra), Atul Chandrakant Dandekar & Ors (W.P.(C) 19484/2025) and Jai Prakash Maurya & Anr. (supra) shall enure to the petitioner.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Bench had granted the same benefit even to persons who had already retired at the age of 57 years.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.), order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 1960/2026 with CM APPL. 9470/2026 - Suresh Mankoti v. Union of India & Ors.: The petitioner challenged an order dated 18.06.2025 requiring submission of documents qua retiral benefits at the age of 57 years and prayed for continuation in service till 60 years of age with all consequential benefits. Noting that the petitioner was still working with the respondents, the Court held that the benefit of its earlier judgments in Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 8573, decided 24.11.2025), Atul Chandrakant Dandekar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 19484/2025) and Jai Prakash Mourya/Maurya & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 998/2026) shall enure to the petitioner, declared him entitled to retire at the age of 60, and disposed of the petition and the pending application. The Bench also recalled having granted the same benefit even to persons who had retired at 57.

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1960/2026 CM APPL. 9470/2026

¶4

SURESH MANKOTI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Himanshu Gautam and Ms. Niharika Punn, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr. Deepansh, GP

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

O R D E R % 11.02.2026

¶10

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶11

a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.06.2025 to the extent it requires the Petitioners to submit documents qua their retiral benefits at the age of 57 years.

¶12

b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to continue in service till 60 years of age along with all consequential benefits.

¶13

c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

¶14

Mr. Gautam has drawn our attention to an order passed by this Court in the case of Cheeli J Ratnam v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8573 which was decided on 24.11.2025.

¶15

Mr. Gautam submits the issue has also been decided by this Court in

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 16/02/2026 at 14:46:35

¶18

the case of Bhim Singh Kothari & Ors v. Union of India & Ors W.P. (C) 18671/2025 by referring to Cheeli J Ratnam ( supra ) holding that the petitioner therein to declare that the petitioner therein would be entitled to retire at the age of 60. We recollect that even this Bench in the case of Jai Prakash Mourya & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 998/2026 vide order dated 23.01.2026, has granted the benefit of 60 years to the petitioner therein.

¶19

Suffice to state that we have granted the benefit even to those persons who had retired at the age of 57 years.

¶20

Since, we have been informed that the petitioner is still working with the respondents, benefit of the judgments in the case of Cheeli J Ratnam ( supra ), Atul Chandrakant Dandekar & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 19484/2025 and also the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Maurya & Anr. (supra) shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

¶21

We accordingly declare the petitioner would be entitled to retire at the age of 60.

¶22

The petition, alongwith the pending application, stands disposed of.

¶23

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶24

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶25

FEBRUARY 11, 2026/ rr

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 16/02/2026 at 14:46:35

Suresh Mankoti v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Mankoti v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Tushar Dev Vs Karvy Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Manoj Kumar Singh

Bombay Judo Association Vs Judo Federation of India & Anr.

Sh. Devender Dutt Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sakshi Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Rifleman Brij Kishor

Navansh Engineer and Consultants Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Meenu Prop Ms Services Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sgt Amar Lal Retd.

Ex-Cpl S Sreekantan Nair Vs Union of India & Ors.