Disposed

Vikram Gupta v. Bureau of Indian Standards

Delhi HC19 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3540/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Director (Accounts) at Bureau of Indian Standards who suffered mental health issues sought voluntary retirement during his illness and later requested its withdrawal; the request was rejected. Without deciding merits, the court directed the Respondent to reconsider his case on humanitarian grounds on a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation on humanitarian grounds in accordance with law.

Vikram Gupta Vs Bureau of Indian Standards — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3540/2026, CM APPL. 17100/2026 & CM APPL. 17099/2026

¶4

VIKRAM GUPTA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Ishita Mohanty, Mr. Ayush Gandhi, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nishchal Joshi, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 19.03.2026

¶12

The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent organisation and, over the course of his career, rose to the post of Director (Accounts). He maintains that he discharged his duties diligently and maintained an unblemished service record, with no disciplinary proceedings ever initiated or contemplated against him.

¶13

The Petitioners asserts that around July, 2025, he began experiencing severe mental health issues, including anxiety, elevated heart rate and blood pressure, emotional instability, hallucinations, and delusions. His condition led to social withdrawal and impaired cognitive functioning. Upon noticing these symptoms, the Petitioner’s wife sought medical intervention through CGHS referrals, and the Petitioner underwent treatment under psychiatrists

¶14

W.P.(C) 3540/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 20/03/2026 at 13:35:32

¶17

and psychologists.

¶18

In view of his deteriorating mental condition, the Petitioner submitted a leave application dated 11^th August, 2025 on medical grounds, as advised by his doctors. The said request was initially rejected by the Respondent, compelling the Petitioner to continue working despite his condition, thereby aggravating his illness. The leave was subsequently sanctioned as Half Pay Leave.

¶19

The Petitioner submits that owing to his impaired mental state, and while not being in a position to take a rational or informed decision, he submitted an application dated 16^th September, 2025 seeking voluntary retirement from service, along with a request for waiver of the mandatory three months’ notice period.

¶20

The said request was considered by the Respondent and, vide Office Memorandum dated 07^th October, 2025, the waiver of the notice period was declined. However, the request for voluntary retirement was accepted, and the Petitioner was informed that he would stand voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31^st December, 2025 upon completion of the mandatory notice period.

¶21

Thereafter, the Petitioner sought a modification in the effective date of voluntary retirement from 31^st December, 2025 to 05^th January, 2026, which was accepted by the Respondent vide Office Memorandum dated 30^th October, 2025.

¶22

It is the Petitioner’s case that, upon some improvement in his mental condition and regaining clarity, he submitted representations dated 25^th January, 2026 and 28^th January, 2026 seeking withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement and permission to rejoin service. The said

¶23

W.P.(C) 3540/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 20/03/2026 at 13:35:32

¶26

representations were, however, rejected by the Respondent vide Office Memorandum dated 09^th February, 2026.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner, after making some submissions, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner would be satisfied in case this Court calls upon the Respondent to reconsider his case on humanitarian grounds, having regard to the facts noted above. She further submits that the Petitioner is not pressing for any adjudication on merits and is conscious that any direction issued by this Court would not create any enforceable right in his favour.

¶28

In these circumstances, without delving into the merits of the case, the Respondent is directed to consider the Petitioner’s case on humanitarian grounds. For this purpose, the Petitioner shall submit a representation to the Respondent, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 10. It is clarified that this Court has not commented on the merits of the case, and any decision rendered pursuant to the aforesaid direction shall not create any right or claim for the Petitioner to approach this Court again to seek judicial review.

¶29

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s).

¶30

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶31

MARCH 19, 2026/ab

¶32

W.P.(C) 3540/2026 Page 3 of 3

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 20/03/2026 at 13:35:32

Vikram Gupta v. Bureau of Indian Standards

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Gupta v. Bureau of Indian Standards

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

Poonam Kaushik Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan (Hq) & Ors.

Harvinder Singh Lamba Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shree Gandhi Ashram Vs Shri Anil Sankhwal & Anr.

Arun Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Itd Cementation India Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Indraprastha Gas Limited Vs UOI

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Jwo Vinod Kumar Agnihotri (695516-R)

Sumit Dabas & Anr. Vs Gnctd & Ors.

Ajay S. Shriram & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Sher Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

G. S. Sodhi Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Suman Bhalla & Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Poonam Yadav Vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and Anr.