REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Renthunglo Mozhui Appellant

V/S

STATE OF NAGALAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA VS. K R TAHILIANI:M M SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW BIHAR BIRI LEAVES CO NATHALAL DOSHI AMRITAMOY GHATAK ALIAS GHATA HARSHAD KUMAR NATWARLAL DALAL SHANKAR PRASAD BHAGAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR:STATE OF WEST BENGAL:STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
O P SINGLA SADHU RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A L AHUJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. FATEH CHAND SONI [REFERRED TO]
K KUPPUSAMY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
H R RAMACHANDRAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. DHARAM BIR [REFERRED TO]
C RANGASWAMAIAH VS. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR VS. SHIV RAM SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PAVANENDRA NARAYAN VERMA VS. SANJAY GANDHI PGI OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [REFERRED TO]
P U JOSHI VS. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER SINGH HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
S N CHANDRASHEKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN CHANDIGARH VS. MANMOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S B BHATTACHARJEE VS. S D MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
M P PALANISAMY VS. A KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT LTD VS. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
MALIN KANTA PAUL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
LOYALAKPA WAHENGBAM ANANTA VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [REFERRED TO]
AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTARANCHAL VS. JAGDISH CHANDRA SINGH BORA [REFERRED TO]
ANIL JOSHI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DEBAJIT DAS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions are being taken up together as they pertain to the same issues and involve the same parties.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/29/2020 has submitted that the petition has become infructuous as the respondent no. 4 in WP(C)/29/2020 has expired during the pendency of the writ petition. WP(C)/29/2020 is accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

(3.) In WP(C)/192/2016, the petitioner has challenged the (i) designation of the post of Systems Analyst as an ex-cadre post under the Directorate of School Education by Notification dtd. 21/7/2011, (ii) the Corrigendum dtd. 21/3/2015 barring the petitioner from consideration for further promotion in the Directorate of School Education, and (iii) the final seniority list of employees under the Department of School Education as on 1/10/2015 showing the name of the petitioner in the ex-cadre post category. The petition was initially filed by Mr. Limawabang Aier; however, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired on 31/8/2021 and thereafter expired on 7/3/2024.The present petitioner/wife of the 1st petitioner filed an application praying for allowing her to pursue the writ proceedings on the ground that if the relief sought for in the petition is allowed, the applicant/wife of the petitioner, who is entitled to the family pension would be getting a higher family pension. Taking into account that the right to sue continues even after the death of the writ petitioner, this Court allowed the application and the present petitioner/wife of the late petitioner was allowed to substitute the first writ petitioner.

Click here to view full judgment.

RENTHUNGLO MOZHUI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address