University of Delhi vs Shashi Kiran

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 438

UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN
University of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Shashi Kiran – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
Mohinder Jit Singh, Aman Sinha, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Nupoor Sinha, Shashi Pathak, K.K. Rai, Shiv Kumar Pandey, Sreoshi Chatterjee, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Awanish Kumar, Anshul Rai, Abhinav Garg, D. Girish Kumar, Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Vikas Kumar, Manish Paliwal Devmani Bansal, Ajay Monga, Himanshu Menghani, Satyajit S. Desai, Satyakam Sharma, Siddharth Gautam, Anagha S. Desai, Tanuj Khurana, Anjali Chauhan, Nar Hari Singh, Swetank Shantanu, Ankit Kumar, Ravi S. Chauhan, Shefali Jain, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Sujeeta Srivastava, Arjun Harkauli, Aditya Ranjan, Satpal Singh, D. S. Chauhan, Rahul Pratap, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Romy Chacko, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Vikas Mehta, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Santosh Kumar - I, Mayank Goel, M/s. UNUC Legal LLP, Advocates

Table of Content
1. factual basis for appeals by university of delhi. (Para 2 , 3)
2. context of extended options under cpf and gpf. (Para 4)
3. arguments regarding option exercise and employee choices. (Para 5 , 10)
4. court's analysis of extensions and options. (Para 11 , 12 , 20)
5. equitable considerations regarding employee switches. (Para 21 , 22)
6. final decision on appeals with remittance directions. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

3. The basic facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions in the High Court are as under:

4. In these circumstances, Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court claiming diverse reliefs. These petitions, by order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, were categorized into three categories.

5. Thus, the employees in all three batches of cases desired to be under GPF rather than under CPF and were therefore praying for a chance to facilitate such switchover. The reason for such attempts was spelt out with clarity in one of the letters³[Letter dated 21.12.2006, which was extracted in the decisions of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court] addressed by the University t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 438

UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARANUniversity of Delhi – AppellantVersusShashi Kiran – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN
University of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Shashi Kiran – Respondent