Vinod Kumar v. Dg Crpf & ORS

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2380/2007 VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. M.M. Singh and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocates versus DG CRPF & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh, GP for R-1 to 4 with Legal Officer Rajesh Kumar Singh, CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 06.02.2024 1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In the abovesaid circumstances, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to;

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 2.3.2001 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Respondent no,4 (Commandant 42 BN C.R.P.F.) dismissing the services of petitioner and the impugned order dated 23.7.2001 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:36:50

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing for reinstatement of petitioner in his services with all consequential benefits and arrears w.e.f. 2.3.2001. (c) Pass any other further order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." 2.

In effect, the petitioner, who, we have been informed, expired on October 21, 2014, has challenged his dismissal from service on March 02, 2001.

3.

The appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority on July 23, 2001.

4.

It is conceded position that the deceased employee had put in four years of service before dismissal and as such would not be entitled to any benefits for the four years of service, he had put in. 5.

In other words, even if he succeeds in the petition, as he has expired, no benefits would flow to the legal heirs of the petitioner. 6.

We are of the view, this petition is required to be closed. It is ordered accordingly.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SAURABH BANERJEE, J FEBRUARY 6, 2024/So The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:36:50