SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Sanjay Gupta – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Delhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J. The issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, who joined Delhi High Court as Junior Judicial Assistant, prior to Smt. Usha Rawat and was, thereafter, appointed as Reader also prior to Smt. Usha Rawat is entitled to stepping up of pay equal to that of Smt. Usha Rawat, who from the date of her joining as a Reader is getting a higher pay than that of Petitioner.

2. The petitioner, prior to filing the present writ petition had given representations to the Delhi High Court on 18.03.2014 and 20.02.2015. The rejection of those representations by the Delhi High Court has led to filing of the present writ petition.

Facts

3. The relevant facts as admitted by the Delhi High Court are that the petitioner joined as Junior Judicial Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "JJA") on 27.02.2001 and Smt. Usha Rawat joined as JJA on 01.06.2001. Both the petitioner and Smt. Usha Rawat gave Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as "LDCE") in the year 2007, in which the petitioner was successful and was appointed as a Reader, with effect from 09.10.2007. Smt. Usha Rawat was promoted as Judicial Assistant on 12.11.2007

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top