w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Brij Kishore Dwivedi v/s Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- H & R BLOCK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2006PTC128344

Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTH INDIA CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102TN1935PTC002652

Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- BRIJ AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1990PTC012563

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

Company & Directors' Information:- P KISHORE & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1980PTC033193

Company & Directors' Information:- BRIJ PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1961PTC011935

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND R BLOCK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00892PN2006PTC128344

Company & Directors' Information:- KISHORE INDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101AS1984PTC002242

Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTH INDIA COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1952PLC001113

    WP(C) No. 908 of 2016

    Decided On, 19 May 2020

    At, High Court of Tripura

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

    For the Petitioners: S.K. Deb, Sr. Advocate. For the Respondents: H. Deb, Asstt. S.G.



Judgment Text


Judgment & Order (Oral)

1. Petitioner has made a grievance about the non-acceptance of his option form dated 15.12.2010 seeking the postponement of the date of grant of revised pay scale. According to the petitioner, such option was exercised before the last date prescribed for such purpose i.e. 31.12.2010. The respondents contend that no valid option was received from the petitioner before the last date and, therefore, the same could not be considered.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner joined the services of Border Security Force (BSF) in the year 2003. At the relevant time in the year 2010 the petitioner was posted in Tripura and was holding the post of Deputy Commandant.

3. The Government of India had implemented fresh pay scales for all its employees w.e.f. 01.01.2006. On 05.07.2010 the Government of India issued an office memorandum pointing out that as per Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 option lies with the Government servant to postpone to draw his pay in the existing scale from 01.01.2006 and to switch over to the revised scale from a later date. In the said memorandum, it was provided that in exercise of the powers under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 the President had granted relaxation in stipulation under Rule 6(4) of the said Rules and the employees may be permitted to revise their initial option latest by 31.12.2010 if such option is more beneficial to them. In the nutshell thus by virtue of the said office memorandum dated 05.07.2010 all Central Government employees were granted one time fresh option to postpone fixation of their pay scale in the revised scales beyond 01.01.2006 if the same was more beneficial to them. Such revised option, however, had to be exercised latest by 31.12.2010.

4. The petitioner claims that such option was exercised by him by filling up the prescribed form and submitting to his office on 15.12.2010. A copy of such option form claimed to be filed by him is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-P/1.

5. The respondents, however, did not act on such option, the reasons behind which will be discussed later. On 20.09.2011 the Assistant Accounts Officer of BSF wrote to the Commandant of the Battalion where the petitioner was posted stating that the petitioner had not exercised the option for postponement of pay fixation before the last date of 31.12.2010 and, therefore, his option cannot be accepted.

6. Significantly, on 09.02.2011 the petitioner had written to the Inspector General and Director of Pay and Accounts. Relevant portions of this letter read as under:

“2. I intend to exercise option as per rule 06(4) of Central Service revised pay scale 2008 in continue to draw pay in due existing scale (Pre revised from 1st Jan 2006) before the grant of senior time scale i.e. 30 Sept 2007 and further whichever to the revised pay structure i.e. pay band of Rs.18,750/- with grade pay Rs.6600/- total Rs.25,350/-.

8. In view of above, it is therefore, requested to your good self to look into the matter and to pass necessary orders enabling me to get my legitimate dues to provide one more chance to give new option as per rule No.11 to the beneficial employees. Hence my pay may please be re-fixed as per pre-revised pay scale of sixth pay commission and onward as applicable. Option for pay fixation has already been forwarded to your HQ. However, a copy of fresh option is enclosed for further re-fixation of my pay on my senior time scale w.e.f. 2007.”

7. This letter dated 09.02.2011 written by the petitioner to the respondents, does not anywhere refer to his exercise of option on 15.12.2010.

8. After detailed correspondence, the Director of Accounts of BSF finally conveyed to the petitioner through proper channel under letter dated 09.04.2014 as under:

“2. In this context, it is submitted that Shri Brij Kishore Dwivedi, DC (IRLA NO.40387277) of 55 Bn BSF was promoted to the rank of Asstt. Comdt. From 30 Sep 2003 and granted senior time scale in the pay scale of Rs.10,000- 325-15,200/- (pre-revised) from 30 Sep 2007 vide FHQ order No.17/56/2007-pers/1954-2253 dated 12 Jan 2009. The pay was fixed at Rs.17210 + 6600 w.e.f. 30.10.2007 with next date of increment on 01/07/2008. The Officer had submitted option which was countersigned by the unit Comdt. on 11/06/2011 for fixation of pay in revised scale (6th CPC) w.e.f. 30/09/2007. The option was forwarded by 55 Bn BSF vide letter No.Estt/55 Bn/Option-form/2011/8303 dtd. 14 June 2011 which was received in PAD on 30 June 2011. “As per GOI order No.07/14/2010-E.III (A) dated 05th July 2010, the employees may be permitted to revise their initial option upto 31/12/2010, if the option is more beneficial to them.” The officer had submitted option for revised pay fixation after the last date mentioned in the order dated 31/12/2010. This case is also verified from Audit Section of PAD. SO option is not admissible at this stage.”

9. After such detailed correspondence, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the department. In the year 2015/2016 the department gave a detailed reply to all the points raised in such legal notice under a communication dated 14.01.2016. In this reply once the stand taken by the department was that the petitioner had not exercised the option before the last date of 31.12.2010. It was pointed out that such option was received and countersigned by the department on 11.06.2011 seeking fixation of pay in the revised scale w.e.f. 30.09.2007. Since this was clearly beyond the time permitted, it was not accepted. At that stage, this petition came to be filed.

10. In the affidavit-in-reply the respondents have reiterated the same stand principally contending that the petitioner had failed to exercise proper option before 31.12.2010. His pay fixation in the revised scale w.e.f. 01.01.2006, therefore, continued.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filled up the necessary form on 15.12.2010 itself. It was for his immediate superior to process the form and forward it to the Accounts Section. If this was not done in time, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit. Much stress has been placed on a letter dated 24.06.2014 written by the Commandant of 55 Bn BSF to the Accounts Officer, New Delhi in which it has been stated as under:

“On searching of old records, option form duly signed by Sh B.K. Dwivedi, Dy Comdt. of date 15.12.2010 duly counter signed by Sh Rakesh Negi, Commandant has been found and same is forwarded for your kind consideration and for further fixation of pay of Sh B.K. Dwivedi, Dy Comdt. please.”

Along with this letter, a copy of the said option form said to have been exercised by the petitioner on 15.12.2010 is annexed which purportedly carries the signature of one Shri Rakesh Negi, Commandant, 55 Bn of BSF. On the basis of this document, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner having exercised the option in time which was also processed by his Commandant at the relevant time, the petitioner must be given benefit thereof. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit simply because his local office due to oversight failed to forward such option form.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the department opposed the petition contending that the petitioner did not file a valid option form before 31.12.2010. The option form stated to have been submitted on 15.12.2010 stated that the petitioner wishes to switch over to the revised pay rules w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This was not in terms of the petitioner’s subsequent request for fixation of his pay in the revised scales w.e.f. 30.09.2007. Such options were received much later in 2011 and 2014. Last date for switching the options was 31.12.2010.

13. As noted, the Government of India issued an office memorandum dated 05.07.2010 allowing a fresh option to all Government employees to postpone fixation of their pay in the revised scales as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 if the same was more beneficial to them. The extension granting fresh option was valid only up to 31.12.2010. In other words, such revised option had to be made before 31.12.2010. It is in this context, the question of the petitioner having exercised such option within time assumes significance. In this regard, we may recall the petitioner contends that he had exercised such option by filling up the form on 15.12.2010. The department also does not seriously dispute that petitioner’s option form was received at the relevant time. However, they point out that such option form only requested that the fixation in the revised pay scales be made w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This is in consonance with the petitioner’s own document which the petitioner has annexed as Annexure-P/1. This is a document which the petitioner claims in the copy of an option form which he had inwarded with the department on 15.12.2010. This does not contain counter signature of a superior officer which is understandable but significantly contains a declaration that he wishes that his pay fixation in the revised scales be done w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is true that the same option form also talks of the date of grant of senior time scale on 30.09.2007. However, the option that the petitioner was given and a declaration in clear terms that the petitioner, therefore, had to make was does he wish to postpone fixation of pay in the revised pay rules of 2008 beyond 01.01.2006. The date of granting of senior time scale was not of any direct consequence. What was important was did the petitioner want that as per normal rule and by default his pay in the revised scales be fixed from 01.01.2006 or finding it more beneficial, he wished that the date of fixation of pay in the revised rules be postponed to a later date. The petitioner did not indicate such option for deferment of pay fixation under the revised pay rules beyond 01.01.2006.

14. This document Annexure-P/1 can be juxtaposition with the petitioner’s own later communication Annexure-P/4 dated 09.02.2011 in which, as noted earlier, the petitioner clearly indicated his desire for deferment of his pay fixation under revised pay rules till 30.09.2007. In this letter petitioner did not refer to his earlier option form which he claimed to have filled up on 15.12.2010. This option if it is treated as a first option form filled up by the petitioner, it was exercised for the first time on 09.02.2011, long after the last date of 31.12.2010 had gone.

15. The petitioner apparently filed one other option form in the year 2014 which would be again of no consequence. Thus the documents on record would suggest that the first attempt of the petitioner to exercise the option by filling up a form on 15.12.2010 was a non-starter. That option was exercised faultily. Having perhaps realized this, the petitioner made a fresh communication on 09.02.2011, this time clearly indicating that he wished that his pay fixation under the revised pay rules be deferred till 31.12.2007.

16. It is true that the Commandant of 55 Bn BSF has written on 24.06.2014 saying that the petitioner’s option of 15.12.2010 was duly received and countersigned by the then Commandant Shri Rakesh Negi on the same date. However, the same was not forwarded. Though the respondents have not flatly denied this position, I find several difficulties in accepting this position. As stated earlier in the letter dated 09.02.2011 the petitioner has not made any reference to his previous option exercised on 15.12.2010. More importantly, the petitioner has produced at Annexure-P/1 the option form that he had filled up on 15.12.2010 which is in all other terms same as a copy annexed along with the letter dated 24.06.2014 written b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

y the Commandant of 55 Bn BSF except that the petitioner’s copy carries the date of 01.01.2006 from which his pay under the revised pay rules should be fixed whereas the copy produced along with the letter Annexure- P/10 carries a handwritten correction over the said date of 01.01.2006 and the date of 30.09.2007 is written. Thus to accept that the petitioner had exercised a valid option on 15.12.2010 is not possible. By the petitioner’s own account he had filled up a form on 15.12.2010 in which he had indicated his desire that his pay under the revised pay rules be fixed w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This theory that he had actually filled up a form indicating his clear intention of postponing the fixation of pay under the revised rules to 30.09.2007 is incongruent to his own document Annexure-P/1. 17. Under the circumstances, I find that the petitioner did fill up a form on 15.12.2010, nevertheless if not exercised the correct option which he now wants to exercise. His correct declaration was made only on 09.02.2011 which was well beyond the last date of 31.12.2010 granted by the office memorandum dated 05.07.2010. I find no error in the stand of the respondents not accepting such form. 18. In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 Shekh Rafiq Versus State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 R. Kishore Kumar Versus The Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-09-2020 Harish Trivedi Versus State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Manoj @ Sallar & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Ltd., Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Jackson Laboratories Private Limited., Represented by its Managing Director Jugal Kishore, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Kumaresan @ Chetty Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Saravanan Versus State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Karaikudi South Police Station, Sivagangai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. South India Road Milk Transport, Rep. by its Proprietor N. Vaidhyananathan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Through the Chief General Manager, Chhattisgarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Sasikala Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Cane, Lko & Another Versus Kaushal Kishore High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
14-07-2020 K. Deepa Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Radhakrishnan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 R.N. Arul Jothi & Others Versus The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Cts.V) Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 T. Angayarkanni Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Home Department, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2020 Esakkimuthu Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-07-2020 Vettaiyan Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 V. Vijayakumarasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 R. Thangam Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police IV) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sulochani Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-06-2020 S. Santhoshkumar & Another Versus Church of South India, South Kerala Diocese (Siuc), Palayam, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Kamala Versus The State represented by its: The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dhanalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-06-2020 Malar Versus The Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Pro Interactive Services India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commisioner of Central Goods & Services Tax Delhi South & Another High Court of Delhi
25-06-2020 Sintu Kumar Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-06-2020 Vemuri Swamy Naidu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-06-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home & Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus P. Pradeepkumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Records Bureau, Office of the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, Residing at Cheruvaickal, Sreekaryaym, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Bhawan Singh Garbyal & Another Versus State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
16-06-2020 Jitendra Mohan Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 P.P. Ramachandra Kaimal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2020 Pawan Kishore Harlalka Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Dr. Kishore Kumar Chouhan & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-06-2020 Suresh Nair Versus Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of External Affairs, E-Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 M. Sujatha Versus State represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Home & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Surya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 P. Murugesan Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Nayee Soch Society (Regd.) Versus Ministry of Home Affairs & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 The South African History Archive Trust Versus The South African Reserve Bank & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
26-05-2020 L. Jayalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 M/s. Prithvi Singh Versus Asst. Commissioner (South), Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Tvl.M.R. Motor Company, Represented by its Managing Partner, N. Rajagopal Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), (FAC), Salem Town (South) Circle, Salem High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 PKSS Infrastructure Private Ltd. Versus South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi