Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

january 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-01-14

GURUSHIDDAPPA N SHIROL vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation / case number
W.P.(C)-383/2025 2025:DHC:194-DB
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
GURUSHIDDAPPA N SHIROL
Respondent
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 383/2025 GURUSHIDDAPPA N SHIROL .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Abhay Kumar Bhargava and Ms.Khushi, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Naginder Benipal, SPC for UOI with Mr.Kapil Dev Yadav, GP and Mr.Ankit Siwach, Adv. for R-1to R-3 Mr.Rajiv Kapur, SC with Mr.Akshit Kapur and Mr.Swetabh Sharma, Advs. for R-4/SBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to award the petitioner the benefits of disability cover flowing from Golden Jubilee Seema Prahari Kalyan Kawach scheme along with 12% interest from the date of Disability considered by the BSF Medical Board dated 24.02.2024. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 383/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:SUNIL Signing Date:16.01.2025 19:58:41 the respondents to award the petitioner the benefits of disability cover flowing from Central Armed Police Salary Package account, along with 12% interest from the date of Disability considered by the BSF Medical Board dated 24.02.2024.” 2. Issue notice. 3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without making any representation to the respondents. 4. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s claim as r

GURUSHIDDAPPA N SHIROL vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. · Niyam