Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NARENDRA NATH SINHA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
5 December 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 233 · 1995 INSC 839

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

It is not necessary to go into the comroversy raised in this appeal since the contesting respondents have already retired by attaining superan· nuation. This Court while granting leave and admitting the appeal slated thus:

p. 234, margin C

"Status quo pending disposal of the appeal as of today in the matter of reversion as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court.

p. 234, margin D

Future promotions will be subject to the result of the appeal."

p. 234, margin E

In the judgment of the High Court in first part in paragraph 46, it was stated thus :

p. 234, margin E

1982 "We would further like to clarify that any order that may be passed in these writ petitions should not effect any confirmation or sub-

p. 234, margin E

stantive promotion made prior to the filing of the writ petitions." In the ultimate paragraph of the judgment a contrary opinion was expressed stating that any action taken prior to November 29, 1979 was illegal.

p. 234, margin F

It is stated by the appellant that on his promotion as Executive Engineer on July 12, 1979 though initially on ad hoc basis, he was confirmed and regularised as an Executive Engineer on June 30, 1980. The writ petition case No. 2447 of 1980 ~=e to be filed by V.N. Mittal on September 29, 1980. In view of the above facts and in view of the directions issued by this Court the consequence would be that the status quo which the appellant had prior to the other passed by this Court, would continue. The rights accrued to the appellant prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition would continue to be available to him, since his promotion and confirmation as such was not quashed. The Government, therefore, would work out the rights of the appellant accordingly.

pp. 234–235, margin G

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. R.P. Appeal disposed.

p. 235, margin B