UNION OF INDIA vs HARANANDA - 2017 Supreme(SC) 1246

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1246

DIPAK MISRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
HARANANDA – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv., Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Adv., Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Supriya Juneja, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Mehta, Adv., Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Adv., Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR
For the Respondents, Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rekah Palli, Sr. Adv., Ms. Punam Singh, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Palli, Adv., Ms. Shruti Munjal, Adv., Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR, Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vabhar Kalra, Adv., Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Choudhary, Adv., Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR, Mr. Ankur Chhibbar, Adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Gautam, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv., Ms. Nibita Singh, Adv., Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Jha, Adv., Mr. Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Mr. Abhijit Sunny, Adv.

ORDER :

1. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The interlocutory applications for substitution and setting aside the abatement stand allowed. Let the cause title be rectified accordingly.

4. Though an adjournment was sought on behalf of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in S.L.P.(C) No.35548-35554 of 2015, as the other counsel appearing in the other special leave petitions have submitted that they may be heard in the matter, we thought it appropriate to have an idea about the case.

5. It has been highlighted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellant, the Union of India and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing in S.L.P.(C) No......CC 5738/2016, which has been preferred on behalf of the Indian Police Services Central Association, that the High Court could not have been able to create Organized Group ‘A’ Services on the basis of certain notes, correspondences and the letters issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, for it is the Home Department which has the jurisdiction/authority under the Railway Pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1246

DIPAK MISRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDARUNION OF INDIA – AppellantVersusHARANANDA – Respondent

DIPAK MISRA, MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
HARANANDA – Respondent