Satyanand Sharma v. UOI & ORS

$~6, 7 & 69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (6) W.P.(C) 16902/2025 & CM APPL. 69570/2025 ANANDI SHANKER SINGH .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr.Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Ms.Kamna Behrani and Mr.Neeraj Paulose, Advs. for R-1.

Mr.S.Rajappa, Mr.R.Gowrishankar, Mr.G.Dhivyasrai, Advs. for R-2 & 3.

(7) W.P.(C) 14702/2025 MS. S.V. SALVE .....Petitioner Through:

Ms.Smrati Sharma, Adv.

versus KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr.S.Rajappa, Mr.R.Gowrishankar, Mr.G.Dhivyasrai, Advs. for R1.

(69)+ W.P.(C) 13808/2025 SATYANAND SHARMA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Adv.

versus UOI & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Ms.Ekta Choudhary, Adv for The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

R-1.

Mr.S.Rajappa, Mr.R.Gowrishankar, Mr.G.Dhivyasrai, Advs. for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

O R D E R

% 12.11.2025 CM APPL. 70507/2025 in W.P.(C) 14702/2025 1.

By way of the present application, the petitioner prays for an amendment in the cause title of the petition, stating that her name has been incorrectly mentioned as Ms. S.V. Salve before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal'), the correct name of the petitioner is Ms. V.S. Salve.

2.

The petitioner, in support of her assertion, has placed on record a copy of her Aadhaar Card.

3.

In view of the above, the application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file the Amended Memo of the parties within a period of two weeks from today.

W.P.(C) 16902/2025 & CM APPL. 69570/2025 W.P.(C) 14702/2025 W.P.(C) 13808/2025 4.

These petitions challenge the Orders passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the O.As. filed by the petitioners herein, wherein they had, inter alia, prayed for grant of pensions in the GPF cum The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Pension Scheme to them.

5.

The issue raised by the petitioners is now covered by our Judgment dated 02.09.2025, titled Bharti Bahuguna v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors., 2025:DHC:7629-DB. 6.

The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, raised an objection with respect to the delay in filing the present petitions. 7.

We find merit in the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, however, at the same time, as the matter involves a claim of pension, we balance the equity by directing that, for the intervening period, that is, from the date of the Order passed by the learned Tribunal till the filing of the present Writ Petitions, the petitioners would not be entitled to claim interest on any amount found payable to them pursuant to the relief granted by us in the above referred Judgment.

8.

The petitions, along with the pending application, are disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 12, 2025/Arya/Yg The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.