Latest news with #RajneeshKumarGupta
India Gazette
08-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi HC seeks govt reply on plea by law researchers over delayed salary hike despite approval
New Delhi [India], July 8 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Delhi government on a petition filed by a group of law researchers who worked with High Court judges between 2018 and 2025. The petitioners are demanding the implementation of a 2023 order that raised their monthly remuneration to Rs 80,000. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that law researchers significantly contribute to the judicial system, often working late nights and weekends. The Court remarked that, on the face of it, the Delhi government must decide on the matter. The judges noted that while the Chief Justice approved the enhanced remuneration in 2023, it was duly cleared by the High Court administration, it has not yet been enforced by the Delhi government. The Court has now issued a notice and set the next hearing for August 21. Previously, Justices Navin Chawla and Ajay Digpaul recused themselves from the case, citing conflicts of interest. The plea also seeks arrears dating back to October 1, 2022, along with 18 per cent annual interest, highlighting the financial delay despite clear administrative backing. The petitioners referred to Article 229 of the Constitution, under which the Delhi High Court framed its Establishment Rules in 1972, creating over 120 law researcher posts. Although multiple salary revisions had been approved, Rs 25,000 initially, raised to Rs 35,000 in 2017, Rs 50,000 in 2018, Rs 65,000 in 2019, and Rs 80,000 in 2022, the last approved hike has remained stalled with the Delhi government. Despite repeated representations and even RTI applications filed in 2024, law researchers discovered that the salary hike proposal, forwarded to the GNCTD in September 2023, remains unapproved. RTI replies indicated that crucial information was being withheld under exemption clauses, and bureaucratic hurdles in the Finance and Law Departments have delayed any progress. Justice C Harishankar, during an earlier hearing, acknowledged that law researchers often work longer hours than judges and that their pay lags behind their counterparts in the Supreme emphasised that after nearly two years of waiting since the Chief Justice cleared the Rs 80,000 proposal, continued inaction is unjustified. The petitioners argue that this prolonged delay, despite constitutional and administrative approvals, violates their rights and warrants immediate judicial intervention to ensure fair compensation. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
03-07-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC upholds CRPF decision rejecting company's bid for arms supply
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has upheld CRPF's decision rejecting a company's bid for supplying sniper rifles and ammunition, calling it fair and reasonable. Delhi HC upholds CRPF decision rejecting company's bid for arms supply A bench of Justices Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta on July 1 passed the order acting on a petition filed by Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd's, which alleged technical bias and unfair advantage to rival bidders. The bench said that the petitioner was given ample opportunity, including a second round of field trials, and was unable to point out any unfairness in the field trials. It rejected company's argument that weather conditions or mirage effects caused the petitioner's failure and said that allowing a third trial would undermine the procurement process and set a problematic precedent. "This court finds that the decision taken by respondent 2 in disqualifying the petitioner vide impugned rejection letter dated March 27, 2025 was not arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational as the petitioner was unable to point out any unfairness in the field trials," the bench said. The court noted that all bidders had agreed to the trial methodology in advance, and the petitioner's objections surfaced only after failing the trial, making them appear as an afterthought. The company contested its disqualification. Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared for the Centre while advocates Varun Pratap Singh, Dev Pratap Shani, and Yogya Bhatia represented the CRPF. The company claimed that it used the specified ball/lock base ammunition whereas its competitors used "hollow point boat tail" type of rounds allegedly in violation of tender norms and international standards. The case stems from a CRPF tender issued on September 24, 2024, for 200 sniper rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. The first round, held in January 2025 in Pune, saw none of the bidders meeting all accuracy benchmarks. A second round in February at the CRPF academy in Gurugram resulted in two other companies passing as the petitioner failed to meet the 400-metre accuracy requirement. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Gazette
03-07-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Delhi HC Upholds CRPF's rejection of bid in Sniper Rifle tender
New Delhi [India], July 23 (ANI): In an order on defence procurement, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Central Reserve Police Force's (CRPF) decision to reject the bid of Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. for the supply of sniper rifles and ammunition. The Court dismissed the company's challenge, which alleged technical bias and unfair advantage to rival bidders. A Division Bench comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ruled that the petitioner was given ample opportunity, including a second round of field trials. The Court found no merit in the argument that weather conditions or mirage effects caused the petitioner's failure. It emphasised that allowing a third trial would undermine the procurement process and set a problematic precedent. The Court accepted the CRPF's interpretation that 'matching ammunition' included Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) rounds. It noted that all bidders had agreed to the trial methodology in advance, and the petitioner's objections surfaced only after failing the trial--making them appear as an afterthought. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tata Motors Ltd. case, the Bench reiterated that a disqualified bidder has no standing to challenge the selection of others. The petitioner had contested its disqualification via a March 27, 2025, letter, arguing that it used the specified Ball/Lock Base ammunition, while competitors used HPBT rounds--allegedly in violation of tender norms and international standards. It also cited favourable results from earlier Pune trials and requested a fresh trial, citing environmental interference during testing. However, the Union of India and CRPF countered that the tender's term 'matching ammunition' encompassed HPBT. They pointed out that no objections were raised during or immediately after the trials, and all bidders--including the petitioner--had signed fair trial certificates. They also argued that the ballistic difference between HPBT and Ball/Lock Base was negligible at the 400-meter range, and a third trial would compromise the integrity and timeliness of the procurement. Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared as Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) for the Union of India, along with Advocates Varun Pratap Singh, Dev Pratap Shani, and Yogya Bhatia, who appeared on behalf of the CRPF. The case stems from a CRPF tender issued on September 24, 2024, for 200 sniper rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Three firms--Stumpp Schuele Lewis, PLR Systems, and ICOMM Tele Ltd.--participated in the trials. The first round, held in January 2025 in Pune, saw none of the bidders meet all accuracy benchmarks. A second round in February at the CRPF Academy in Gurugram resulted in PLR Systems and ICOMM passing, while the petitioner failed to meet the 400-meter accuracy requirement. (ANI)
Hans India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
CLAT-PG: Delhi HC to hear on July 17 plea challenging 'exorbitant' confirmation fee
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted additional time to the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to file its reply to a petition challenging the "exorbitant" non-refundable confirmation fee being levied for Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) postgraduate admissions. A bench of Justice Vikash Mahajan posted the matter for further hearing on July 17, and in the meantime, asked the Consortium of National Law Universities and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to file their counter affidavits. Last week, a vacation bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta agreed to examine the plea challenging "the arbitrary level of exorbitant fees" in the name of non-refundable confirmation fee at every round of CLAT-PG counselling and issued notices to respondent authorities, including the Bar Council of India (BCI). The plea filed by advocate Siddharth R. Gupta contended that this non-refundable confirmation fee was not only unreasonable, but also violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, and was being levied mechanically without even examining the suitability of a large number of candidates to bear the exorbitant expenditure of participating in the counselling and admission process. It added that the "exorbitant" non-refundable confirmation fee was also violative of the directions issued by the UGC since all the NLUs are bound by such directions under the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. The petitioner Jatin Shrivastava, a successful candidate of CLAT-PG examination, who has achieved 474 rank in the recently revised results, claimed that he is entirely dependent on education loan for pursuing his LLM degree, which would be sanctioned only after he gets admission in any NLU of his choice and even the loan installments will be transferable only to the NLU concerned and not to the CLAT Consortium. As per the plea, despite financial distress in his family, the petitioner has deposited the requisite counselling fees of Rs 30,000, and he chose to espouse the cause on behalf of all such large number of candidates who may be facing financial adversities to pay the exorbitant fees of Rs 20,000-40,000 per round of counselling.
Time of India
24-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
NLU PG aspirant challenges ‘exorbitant' counselling fee, HC sends notice
New Delhi: Delhi High Court declined any interim relief to a Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) postgraduate candidate who complained that the counselling fee charged by the consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) was "exorbitant". Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, however, sought the stand of the consortium, Bar Council of India, University Grants Commission, central govt and others by July 2. In his plea, the candidate said he could not participate in the second round of counselling on June 20 as the rules mandated he deposit Rs 20,000 as "upfront payment" after he already paid Rs 30,000 as a refundable counselling fee for the first round. The plea assailed Clause 2, Admissions Counselling Process, which provides for a freeze option, where whenever any candidate wants to book a spot, he is required to deposit a "non-refundable confirmation fee" of Rs 20,000. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi Questioning why this fee is payable at every round whenever the candidate opts to freeze any seat, the plea says a candidate thus may be charged even multiple times, considering there are three rounds of counselling. "Thus, via various sub-clauses of Clause 2.1, for the 2nd and 3rd/final round of counselling, the candidate would be required to pay a non-refundable amount of Rs 20,000-40,000 only for freezing their seat in both the rounds," the petition argued, saying such a steep fee has "absolutely no nexus" with the counselling's stated purpose and creates a financial barrier for many students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Falta Apenas 1 Minuto para Garantir Seu Aparelho Grátis Aparelhos Auditivo PT Undo "I cannot participate without making payment of Rs 20,000 for per-round participation… This is the only exam in the whole country which charges such a large amount. Hundreds of students are not able to participate in the counselling. I missed the second round and the third round is on July 4," the counsel argued. The court refused the plea for interim relief in the form of a waiver, but posted it for further hearing next month.
