eCourtsIndia

Dileep Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of India

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Abhay S. Oka
Case Status:Dismissed
Order Date:16 Sept 2013
CNR:SCIN010332012010

AI Summary

In a Special Leave Petition concerning a service matter, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner an additional week to file a rejoinder affidavit. This procedural order reflects the court's commitment to ensuring all parties have an adequate opportunity to present their case, delaying a substantive hearing but advancing the litigation process.

Ratio Decidendi:
The ratio decidendi is not applicable as this is a procedural order, not a substantive ruling on the merits.
Obiter Dicta:
No significant obiter dicta are present in this brief procedural order.

Case Identifiers

Primary Case No:SLP(C) No. 7641/2011
Case Type:Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
Case Sub-Type:SLP - Service Matter
Secondary Case Numbers:SLP(C) No. 35751 of 2011
Order Date:2013-08-12
Filing Year:2011
Court:Supreme Court of India
Bench:Division Bench
Judges:Hon'ble Gyan Sudha Misra, Hon'ble Pinaki Chandra Ghose

Petitioner's Counsel

S. Santanam Swaminadhan
Advocate - Appeared
Ram Gupta
Advocate - Appeared
Anand Singh
Advocate - Appeared
Anil Kumar Tandale
Advocate - Appeared

Respondent's Counsel

Rekha Palli
Advocate - Appeared
Tara Chandra Sharma
Advocate - Appeared
Neelam Sharma
Advocate - Appeared

eCourtsIndia AITM

Brief Facts Summary

This order arises from a Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by Dileep Kumar Pandey against the Union of India & Ors., challenging a judgment and order dated July 12, 2010, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The matter was listed for hearing on August 12, 2013, where the Supreme Court, considering a request from the petitioner's side, granted one week to file a rejoinder affidavit.

Timeline of Events

2010-07-12

Judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 1074/2010.

2011

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7641/2011 filed in the Supreme Court by Dileep Kumar Pandey.

2013-08-12

Case called on for hearing in the Supreme Court. Petitioner's counsel circulated a letter requesting time to file a rejoinder affidavit.

Key Factual Findings

A letter was circulated on behalf of the petitioner requesting time.

Source: Current Court Finding

Statutes Applied

Service Laws
Appointment, Compassionate appointment, temporary appointment, recruitment, probation and confirmation, suspension, reduction in rank, termination, dismissal, removal, retirement, disciplinary proceedings against employees
The underlying dispute falls under the broad category of Service Laws, indicating issues related to employment terms or disciplinary actions.

Petitioner's Arguments

The arguments are not detailed in this procedural order, but the petitioner's side, through counsel, requested additional time to file a rejoinder affidavit.

Respondent's Arguments

The arguments are not detailed in this procedural order, but the respondent's side was present through counsel.

Court's Reasoning

The Court granted time for filing a rejoinder affidavit based on a 'letter circulated on behalf of the petitioner'. This suggests a request was made and accepted as a procedural necessity.

Judicial Philosophy Indicators:
  • Emphasis on Procedural Fairness
Order Nature:Procedural
Disposition Status:Adjourned

Impugned Orders

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case: SA No. 1074/2010
Date: 2010-07-12

Specific Directions

  1. 1.One week time is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
  2. 2.List after one week.

Precedential Assessment

Non-Binding (Procedural)

This is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time, without any discussion or ruling on substantive legal principles. It has no precedential value.

Tips for Legal Practice

1.Ensure timely submission of procedural requests, such as extensions for filing affidavits, well in advance of the hearing.
2.Always be prepared for procedural directions even if expecting a substantive hearing, as courts prioritize proper documentation.
3.Keep track of connected matters (like SLP(C) No. 35751 of 2011) that may be heard alongside the main case.

Legal Tags

Supreme Court procedural order special leave petitionRejoinder affidavit filing extension service matterHigh Court judgment challenged in Supreme CourtIndian service law employment dispute Supreme CourtCivil appeal interim order record of proceedings

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

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.12 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).7641/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 12/07/2010 in SA No.1074/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD) DILEEP KUMAR PANDEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) NO. 35751 of 2011 (With office report) Date: 12/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv. Mr. Ram Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mrs.Rekha Palli, Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the letter circulated on behalf of the petitioner, one week time is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List after one week.

´

(NAVEEN KUMAR) (S.S.R. KRISHNA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

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

Viewing

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

Click to view

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