ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Date of Judgment: 14-05-2018

Preview image for ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS

Full Judgment Text

ITEM NO.804 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 877/2018 @ SLP(C)NO.15852/2018 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS Respondent(s) Date : 14-05-2018 This appeal was mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Gupta,Adv. Ms. Mansi Kukreja,Adv. M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Mohd. Waquas,Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh,Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR UPON being mentioned the Court made the following O R D E R On the matter being mentioned, the learned counsel for the parties stated that there may not be necessity of a direction as contained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment passed by this Court on 11.5.2018, which accordingly stand deleted. They further plead that paragraph 27 of the said judgment may be read as under: “The respondent will ensure that the differential mandatory benefits including increments are remitted to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of the order.” Ordered accordingly. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER (Signed reportable order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2018.05.15 18:20:27 IST Reason: REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.877 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP(C)No.15852 of 2016] ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R On the matter being mentioned, the learned counsel for the parties stated that there may not be necessity of a direction as contained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the judgment passed by this Court on 11.5.2018, which accordingly stand deleted. They further plead that paragraph 27 of the said judgment may be read as under: “The respondent will ensure that the differential mandatory benefits including increments are remitted to the appellants within a period of three months from the date of the order.” Ordered accordingly. ………………………………………………………J. [ J. CHELAMESWAR ] ………………………………………………………J. [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ] NEW DELHI DATED; MAY 14, 2018