SANTOSHKUMARPANDEY v. UNIONOFINDIA.....RespondentsThrough & Ors.
Judgment
$~3(SDB)*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C)-15796/2025SANTOSHKUMARPANDEY.....PetitionerThrough:Mr.VineetBhatia, Adv.versusUNIONOFINDIAANDORS......RespondentsThrough:Ms.VaishaliGupta, Adv.CORAM:JUSTICEPRATHIBAM.SINGHJUSTICERENUBHATNAGARORDER%06.02.20261.Thishearinghasbeendonethroughhybridmode.CMAPPL.8164/2026inW.P.(C)-15796/20252.ThisisanapplicationfiledbythePetitionerseekingmodificationofthejudgmentdated17thDecember,2025passedbythisCourtinthepresentpetition.3.Mr.Bhatia, ld. CounselforthePetitionersubmitsthatthejudgmentinadvertentlyhasrelegatedthePetitionertoavailoftheappellateremedywhereas, infact, insimilarmatterstheordersthatwerepassedwereforremandingthemattertotheAdjudicatingAuthority.4.Issuenotice.Ms.VaishaliGupta, ld. Counselacceptsnotice.5.Listthisapplicationforhearingon18thFebruary,2026.PRATHIBAM.SINGH,J.RENUBHATNAGAR,J.FEBRUARY06,2026/dj/ck
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.