Delhi High Court · 2026-04-13
NARENDRA SINGH vs THE CHAIRMAN, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- LPA-193/2026 2026:DHC:3139-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- NARENDRA SINGH
- Respondent
- THE CHAIRMAN, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 13.04.2026 % LPA 193/2026 & CM APPL. 21174/2026 NARENDRA SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Adv. with Mr.Jamnesh Kumar and Ms.Deepti Ahuja, Advs. versus THE CHAIRMAN, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. with Ms.Ila Nath, Advs CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL CM APPL. 21174/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 193/2026 & CM APPL. 21173/2026 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This intra-court appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 09.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C) 1822/2026 instituted by the appellant, has been dismissed. Signature Not Verified LPA 193/2026 Page 1 of 11 Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM L Signing Date:15.04.2026 19:51:04 We may note that by filing W.P.(C) 1822/2026, the appellant had challenged the notice of termination of services dated 09.09.2024 and the subsequent communication dated 12.08.2025, whereby it was directed that the appellant’s services shall stand terminated with immediate effect. 5. The appellant was appointed on the post of the Development Officer Grade-II with the respondents on 09.08.1998. The appointment of the appellant was made under the provisions of the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Scheme”), which is framed under Section 16 (1)(g) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The Scheme is, thus, statutory in nature. 6. On 20.01.1999, the services of the appellant were confirmed. Thereafter, he was promoted to