Munit Dinker and Ors vs Union of India and Ors

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 18, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1255633

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1255633
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decided On: Feb 18, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/1548/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munit Dinker and Ors

Advocate Mr. Ankur Chhibber

Respondent

Union of India and Ors

Advocate Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma

Excerpt

.....court vide judgment dated 09.09.2024 in w.p.(c) no.690/2022 affirmed by the hon'blesupreme court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and the judgmentof this hon'ble court in w.p.(c) no.886/2020 dated 14.10.2024 and judgment dated 06.09.2010 in w.p.(c)no.13225/201o passed by the hon'ble high court of madras as upheld by the hon'ble supreme court in civil appeal no.8883/20 ii vide order dated 10.10.2017 along with arrears, and all other consequential benefits; and(iii) pass any such orders as the hon 'ble court may deem fit inthe light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”2. on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents soughttime to take instructions. today, she says she has instructions to contend that the petition shall be considered as a representation on behalf of the 417 petitioners to be decided, keeping in view the judgments as referred to by the petitioners in this petition.3. noting the submissions, a reasoned and detailed order shall be passedby the respondents by considering the grounds and the documents annexed with the petition, within twelve weeks from today, as an outer limit.4. if the petitioners have any grievance, they shall be at liberty toapproach the court in accordance with law.5. we make it clear, if the petitioners are found to be eligible for grant ofclaim as made in the petition, the benefits thereof, shall be paid to them within four weeks of the passing of the order.6. the pending application, if any is also disposed of, having becomeinfructuous.v. kameswar rao, jmanmeet pritam singh arora, jfebruary 18, 2026/rt

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1548/2026

MUNIT DINKER AND ORS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC, ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

ORDER

% 18.02.2026

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 17.1 0.2025 issued by the Respondents wherein the Petitioners have been denied the benefit of Non-functional Upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.54001- in an arbitrary and unfair manner; and

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to

grant the benefit of Non-Functional Upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-3w.e.f. the date of them being eligible as granted by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2024 in W.P.(C) NO.690/2022 affirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and the judgment

of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.886/2020 dated 14.10.2024 and Judgment dated 06.09.2010 in W.P.(C)No.13225/201O passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8883/20 II vide order dated 10.10.2017 along with arrears, and all other consequential benefits; and

(iii) Pass any such orders as the Hon 'ble Court may deem fit in

the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents sought

time to take instructions. Today, she says she has instructions to contend that the petition shall be considered as a representation on behalf of the 417 petitioners to be decided, keeping in view the judgments as referred to by the petitioners in this petition.

3. Noting the submissions, a reasoned and detailed order shall be passed

by the respondents by considering the grounds and the documents annexed with the petition, within twelve weeks from today, as an outer limit.

4. If the petitioners have any grievance, they shall be at liberty to

approach the Court in accordance with law.

5. We make it clear, if the petitioners are found to be eligible for grant of

claim as made in the petition, the benefits thereof, shall be paid to them within four weeks of the passing of the order.

6. The pending application, if any is also disposed of, having become

infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/rt

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties Munit Dinker and Ors vs Union of India and Ors Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Manme...