Delhi High Court

58,736 judgments

Year:

Krishan Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

05 Jul 1996 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Manoj Jain · 2023:DHC:4037-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that an unconditional resignation results in forfeiture of pension rights under NABARD Pension Regulations, rejecting the petitioner's claim equating resignation with voluntary retirement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant resignation voluntary retirement pension entitlement NABARD Pension Regulations 1993

V.P. Kathuria and Ors. v. Cement Corporation of India and Anr.

09 Apr 1996 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:8644
Cites 2 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that employees who retired or resigned before delayed DPCs but were in service on the retrospective promotion date are entitled to notional promotions with consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant retrospective promotion Departmental Promotion Committee notional promotion zone of consideration

Naresh Kumar v. Union of India

25 Mar 1996 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2018:DHC:8394-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate whose appointment was delayed due to employer's fault is entitled to notional seniority fixation with his batchmates and consequential benefits, distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohitash Kumar.

administrative petition_allowed Significant seniority fixation delay in appointment character and antecedent verification notional seniority

MMTC Ltd v. P. K. Das & Ors.

11 Sep 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8083-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that recovery of long-standing excess perks paid to retired senior executives sanctioned by the employer's Board is impermissible and violates Article 14, dismissing MMTC's appeal.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recovery of excess payments perks and allowances Department of Public Enterprises Article 14

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. D.P. Sharma

19 Jul 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7648-DB

An employee who avails voluntary retirement under SVRS on a reduced pay scale cannot later claim retrospective enhancement of pay or benefits subsumed within the SVRS package.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme Employer-employee relationship Pay scale revision

Smt Usha Devi v. Union of India and Anr

25 May 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7783-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 40

The Delhi High Court held that dismissal for habitual unauthorized absence does not bar grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules if the misconduct does not involve moral turpitude or dishonesty, and directed grant of allowance to the petitioner widow.

administrative petition_allowed Significant compassionate allowance Rule 41 CCS Pension Rules 1972 dismissal from service unauthorized absence

A.ES ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED & ANR.

26 Sep 1994 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2023:DHC:3519

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking appointment of arbitrators under the MSA as the petitioner was not a party to that agreement, holding that disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1 are governed solely by the FA with arbitration seat at Kolkata.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Master Service Agreement Facility Agreement

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Priyanka

08 Apr 1994 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9843-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an OBC certificate issued by GNCTD authorities on the basis of a certificate from another State does not qualify for OBC reservation under a specific recruitment advertisement, validating the cancellation of the respondent's candidature.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant OBC certificate reservation Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Department of Health and Family Welfare

Raminder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority

21 Mar 1994 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:2831

The Delhi High Court held that denial of flat allotment under the "wrong address policy" cannot be based on mere suspicion and directed proper verification and a speaking order before deciding on the petitioner’s entitlement.

administrative other Significant wrong address policy ration card change of address allotment of flat

Pankaj Kumar Pathak v. Canara Bank Erstwhile Syndicate Bank

01 Nov 1993 · Avneesh Jhingan · 2025:DHC:10299

The Delhi High Court held that deduction of one third pension on compulsory retirement without a reasoned order and consultation with the Board of Directors violates natural justice and set aside the deduction.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pension deduction compulsory retirement natural justice Regulation 33

Birma Devi and Ors. v. UOI and Anr

10 Sep 1993 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:760-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that casual labourers granted temporary status but not regularised before retirement are entitled to pensionary benefits due to the employer's failure to regularise, overruling the denial of pension on procedural grounds.

labor appeal_allowed Significant temporary status casual labourers regularisation pensionary benefits

M/S Kushal Infraproject Industries (India) Ltd v. Umed Singh (Deceased) ThrLrs & Ors

03 Sep 1993 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:8720-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an interlocutory order closing the right to lead evidence, holding such orders are not appealable judgments under the Delhi High Court Act and CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant appealability interlocutory order judgment definition Delhi High Court Act 1966

Central Board of Trustees (EPFO) v. M/S Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

03 May 1993 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:2137
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that while the principal employer is liable for PF dues of workers employed through contractors, the Adjudicating Authority must conduct proper enquiry and identify beneficiaries before assessment, and procedural fairness must be ensured in appellate proceedings.

administrative remanded Significant Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A EPF Act principal employer liability contractors and sub-contractors

National Building Construction Corporation v. M/s Sharma Enterprises

02 Apr 1992 · Jasmeet Singh
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award except for the interest component, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 is limited and the contract barred pendente lite interest.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 31(7) Contract termination

Ajay Kumar Bhagat and Ors. v. B.L. Sherwal and Anr.

31 Dec 1991 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:5402

The Delhi High Court dismissed a civil contempt petition for non-compliance of an interim order due to delay beyond the one-year limitation period under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

civil petition_dismissed Significant civil contempt wilful disobedience limitation period Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Ari Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs v. UOI

22 Jul 1991 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:563
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

The Delhi High Court dismissed a restoration application filed after a 25-year delay due to insufficient grounds for condonation of delay and upheld the dismissal of the original appeal for default.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay restoration of appeal default dismissal Limitation Act

Vipin Kumar and Anr v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors

20 Sep 1990 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:345-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld UPSC's recruitment process, ruling that introducing a screening test with 50% interview weightage before commencement was lawful and not arbitrary.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recruitment process screening test interview marks allocation rules of the game

Vishav Priya Singh v. Union of India

25 Jul 1990 · G. S. Sistani; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:3488-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a Summary Court Martial and punishment awarded for disobedience, rejecting the petitioner's challenge to jurisdiction and procedural irregularities.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Summary Court Martial Army Act 1950 Section 41(2) Army Act Section 164(2) Army Act

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Inder Jit Dua

20 Sep 1989 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul

The Delhi High Court upheld the CAT's order granting Selection Grade under the Career Advancement Scheme to a regularised Lecturer without requiring a Master's degree, affirming that CAS benefits extend to pre-1996 recruits appointed by upgradation.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Career Advancement Scheme AICTE circular Selection Grade Regularisation

Rajinder Parshad Sharma v. State

31 May 1989 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2021:DHC:363
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court granted probate of a duly executed Will in favor of the adopted son and sole beneficiary after objections were withdrawn through a settlement, exempting him from furnishing an administration bond.

civil appeal_allowed Significant probate Indian Succession Act, 1925 valid Will attestation