W.P.(C)/11975/2016 of SHIV KUMAR Vs UOI AND ORS

Court: Delhi High Court
Decision date: 2024-02-14
Case number: 11975/2016

Parties

SHIV KUMAR (PETITIONER)
UOI AND ORS (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

W.P.(C)/2420/2007 of HEMI Vs UOI & ORS. (2008)

Statutes cited (1)

code of civil procedure (1908)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 11975/2016, CM APPL. 19382/2019

SHIV KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. A.K Mishra, Mr. Ankush Sharma and Mr. Robin Jaswal, Advs. and Mr. Robin Jaswal, Advs.

versus

UOI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocates with Mr. Saurabh Bhushan, Legal Officer Pratap Singh Charak, Advocates with Mr. Saurabh Bhushan, Legal Officer

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEEO R R14.02.2024

1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

prayers:-

“a) issue writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix the next higher grade pay for which the petitioner is legally entitled as per 5[th] & 6[th] CPC recommendations. next higher grade pay for which the petitioner is legally entitled as per 5[th] & 6[th] CPC recommendations.

b) issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the next higher grade salary. the next higher grade salary.

c) direct the respondents to transmit all the records relating to the services of petitioner before this Hon'ble Court; the services of petitioner before this Hon'ble Court;

d) award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the Petitioner against the respondents. against the respondents.

e) Pass any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deep fit, and proper in the interest of Justice.”and proper in the interest of Justice.”

2.The submission of Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner

is that though various reliefs have been sought but the primary grievance of the petitioner is with regard to step up of pay qua the junior who is drawing higher pay.

3.On specific query to Mr. Mishra as to name the officer who is junior to the petitioner and is drawing higher pay, Mr. Mishra states that the name of such an officer is not known to the petitioner.

4.If that be so, in the absence of relevant averment as to the junior who is drawing higher pay, this petition along with the pending application is liable to be dismissed.

5.It is ordered accordingly. No cost.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

FEBRUARY 14, 2024/ds

SAURABH BANERJEE, J