Pallab Kumar Sarkar vs Union of India and Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Apr 29, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1263316

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/1263316
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
Decided On: Apr 29, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/5809/2026
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

Pallab Kumar Sarkar

Advocate Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha, Mr. Madhuresh Kumar Mishra

Respondent

Union of India and Anr

Excerpt

.....to pay special compensation of rs.5 crores for the mental torture, irrevocable loss of reputation, causing detrimental health (especially to the eyes) caused due to immense depression leading to self-annihilatory tendencies. also to pay litigation expenses which would be incurred by compensate the petitioner for the damages caused due to the arbitrary and illegal orders”.2. the petitioner is an employee of the intelligence bureau, whichfunctions under the ministry of home affairs, government of india, and is thus a central government employee. the impugned action arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the central civil services (conduct) rules, 1964. in terms of section 14 of the administrative tribunals act,1985, service matters concerning such employees fall within the jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal. in view of the law laid down by the supreme court in l. chandra kumar v. union of india & ors.1, disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the central administrative tribunal in the first instance, and the writ jurisdiction of this court is not ordinarily invoked at the threshold.3. in view of the above, counsel for the petitioner seeks leave towithdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the central administrative tribunal, in accordance with law.4. leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted.5. the writ petition, along with pending application(s), stands dismissedas withdrawn. sanjeev narula, j april 29, 2026/hc(1997) 3 scc 261.

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5809/2026 & CM APPLs. 28610-28611/2026 PALLAB KUMAR SARKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha and Mr. Madhuresh Kumar Mishra, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ORDER

% 29.04.2026

1. This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 09.02.2023 imposing compulsory retirement on the Petitioner; b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to his withheld post (Assiatant Director, w.e.f October 2021) with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits; c) Issue direction to the respondents to pay special compensation of Rs.5 Crores for the mental torture, irrevocable loss of reputation, causing detrimental health (especially to the eyes) caused due to immense depression leading to self-annihilatory tendencies. Also to pay litigation expenses which would be incurred by compensate the petitioner for the damages caused due to the arbitrary and illegal orders”.

2. The Petitioner is an employee of the Intelligence Bureau, which

functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and is thus a Central Government employee. The impugned action arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

1985, service matters concerning such employees fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.1, disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance, and the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not ordinarily invoked at the threshold.

3. In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to

withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.

4. Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted.

5. The writ petition, along with pending application(s), stands dismissed

as withdrawn. SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 29, 2026/hc

(1997) 3 SCC 261.

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Pallab Kumar Sarkar vs Union of India and Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula