eCourtsIndia

Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of India

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Abhay S. Oka
Case Status:Dismissed
Order Date:3 Nov 2011
CNR:SCIN010332012010

AI Summary

In a procedural order, the Supreme Court Registrar directed verification of a vakalatnama filed by the respondent's counsel and granted four weeks for filing a counter affidavit. This development pertains to a Special Leave Petition concerning service matters, highlighting the initial steps in a legal challenge that could impact the petitioner's career prospects and the respondent's employment policies, setting the stage for substantive arguments on recruitment, probation, or disciplinary actions.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Registrar's court has the power to direct verification of counsel's filings and to grant reasonable time for submitting affidavits in Special Leave Petitions to ensure proper procedural compliance before the case proceeds to substantive hearings.
Obiter Dicta:
The order implies the importance of Advocates-on-Record ensuring their filings are accurately recorded and verifiable by the court registry.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:SLP(Civil) No. 7641/2011
Case Type:Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Case Sub-Type:SLP - Service Matters : Appointment, Compassionate appointment, temporary appointment, recruitment,probation and confirmation, suspension, reduction in rank, termination, dismissal, removal, retirement, disciplinary proceedings against employees
Secondary Case Numbers:CA No. 10899 / 2013
Order Date:2011-09-05
Filing Year:2011
Court:Supreme Court of India
Bench:Registrar Court
Judges:Hon'ble H.B. Prabhakara Sastry

Petitioner's Counsel

Anil Kumar Tandale
Advocate - Present

Respondent's Counsel

Rekha Palli
Advocate-on-Record - Appeared

Advocates on Record

Rekha Palli

eCourtsIndia AITM

Brief Facts Summary

This order is a procedural direction from the Supreme Court Registrar's Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil). The petitioner's counsel was present. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondents stated that she had filed a vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on May 18, 2011. The Registrar directed the office to verify this filing and, if confirmed, granted four weeks for the counter affidavit. The case was scheduled to be listed again on November 3, 2011.

Timeline of Events

2010-07-12

High Court of Uttar Pradesh passes an order in SA-1074-2010, which is subsequently challenged.

2011-03-07

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7641/2011 is registered in the Supreme Court.

2011-05-18

Ms. Rekha Palli, AOR for respondents, claims to have filed vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2011-09-05

Hearing before Registrar H.B. Prabhakara Sastry; order issued for verification of vakalatnama and filing of counter affidavit.

2011-11-03

Next scheduled listing date for the case.

Key Factual Findings

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

Source: Current Court Finding

Learned Advocate-on-Record, Ms. Rekha Palli for the respondent appears and submits that she has filed vakalatnama for respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 18.5.2011.

Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading

Primary Legal Issues

1.Procedural compliance for filing of legal representation in Supreme Court
2.Timelines for filing counter-affidavits in Special Leave Petitions

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner's counsel was present, indicating readiness to proceed, likely awaiting the formal filing and acceptance of representation from the respondent's side to move forward with the substantive arguments.

Respondent's Arguments

The learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent submitted that she had already filed a vakalatnama for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on May 18, 2011, seeking to confirm her representation for these parties.

Court's Reasoning

The Registrar's decision was based on the need to verify the respondent's legal representation to ensure proper procedural adherence before allowing further steps in the litigation, specifically the filing of a counter affidavit. Granting time for the counter affidavit is a standard procedural step once representation is confirmed.

Judicial Philosophy Indicators:
  • Strict Adherence to Procedure
Order Nature:Procedural
Disposition Status:Pending

Impugned Orders

High Court, Uttar Pradesh
Case: SA-1074-2010
Date: 2010-07-12

Specific Directions

  1. 1.Office to verify the filing of vakalatnama by Ms. Rekha Palli for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and submit a clear report.
  2. 2.In case vakalatnama is filed, learned counsel is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.
  3. 3.List again on 3.11.2011.

Precedential Assessment

Non-Binding (Procedural)

This is a procedural order by the Registrar, not a substantive judgment by a Bench, and thus carries no precedential value on legal principles.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.Advocates must ensure proper and timely filing of vakalatnamas and other documents to avoid procedural delays.
2.Always be prepared for office reports requiring verification of procedural steps, especially in higher courts.
3.Understand that initial listings before the Registrar are typically for procedural compliance, not substantive arguments.

Legal Tags

Supreme Court Registrar procedural orders in Special Leave PetitionsVerification of vakalatnama Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court practiceGrant of time for filing counter affidavit in civil appealsService law disputes appointment compassionate appointment disciplinary actionProcedural steps in challenging High Court orders at Supreme Court level

Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.

Order Text

²ITEM NO.32 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE REGISTRAR H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).7641/2011

DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With office report)

Date: 05/09/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mrs.Rekha Palli,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

The learned Advocate-on-Record, Ms. Rekha Palli for

the respondent appears and submits that she has filed vakalatnama for respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 18.5.2011. Office to verify the same and submit a clear report.

In case, learned appearing counsel has filed vakalatnama, she is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

List again on 3.11.2011.

(H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY) REGISTRAR

rd

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(33) - 21 May 2025

Judgement - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(34) - 21 May 2025

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(32) - 28 Aug 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(31) - 22 Aug 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(30) - 21 Aug 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(29) - 8 Aug 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(28) - 1 Aug 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(27) - 22 Feb 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(26) - 1 Feb 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(25) - 11 Jan 2024

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(24) - 8 Nov 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(23) - 4 Oct 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(22) - 3 Aug 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(21) - 27 Jul 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(20) - 19 Jul 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(19) - 11 May 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(18) - 20 Apr 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(17) - 22 Mar 2023

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(16) - 5 Feb 2018

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(14) - 3 May 2017

ROP

Click to view

Order(15) - 3 May 2017

ROP

Click to view

Order(13) - 2 Dec 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(11) - 28 Oct 2013

Office Report - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(12) - 28 Oct 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(10) - 23 Sept 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(9) - 16 Sept 2013

Office Report - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(8) - 12 Aug 2013

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(7) - 6 Nov 2012

ROP

Click to view

Order(6) - 16 Mar 2012

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(5) - 16 Dec 2011

ROP

Click to view

Order(4) - 3 Nov 2011

ROP - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(3) - 5 Sept 2011

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(2) - 1 Apr 2011

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(1) - 7 Mar 2011

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view