RANJEET TRIPATHI vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. Advocate - ASSTT.S.G.I. — WP(C)/8721/2019
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 01st April 2026.
CNR: GAHC010287002019
Filing Number
WP(C)/16957/2019
Filing Date
20-Nov-2019
Registration No
WP(C)/8721/2019
Registration Date
25-Nov-2019
Judge
Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Coram
Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Category
10048 - Promotion with respect to Service of Local Bodies, Banks, State & Central Public Sector Undertaking, Statutory Bodies and Universities and Instituti ( 48 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Of
Last updated 01-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RANJEET TRIPATHI
Adv. MR. P J SAIKIA,MR. R R KAUSHIK,MR. R R KAUSHIK, ,MR. L N DIHINGIA,MR. R R KAUSHIK
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. Advocate - ASSTT.S.G.I.
-
2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
-
3.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
-
4.THE FRONTIER HEAD QUARTER
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF
The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Ranjeet Tripathi seeking promotion to Sub-Inspector (Motor Transport) in SSB and compensation for delayed promotion. The Court found his promotion prayer redressed as he was granted promotion during the petition's pendency, but rejected his compensation claim due to vague pleadings, lack of particulars regarding alleged supersession, and failure to array junior officers as respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-Jan-2020
Motion
Honourable Mr. Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak
-
29-Nov-2019
Honourable Mr. Justice Manash Ranjan PathakView PDF
-
20-Nov-2019
Case filed
Registration No. WP(C)/8721/2019
The Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by Ranjeet Tripathi seeking promotion to Sub-Inspector (Motor Transport) in SSB and compensation for delayed promotion. The Court found his promotion prayer redressed as he was granted promotion during the petition's pendency, but rejected his compensation claim due to vague pleadings, lack of particulars regarding alleged supersession, and failure to array junior officers as respondents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts