Kuldeep Raj vs The Union of India and 8 Ors Advocate - Marto Kato, ,DSGI,GA (AP),Lissing Perme,SC(Power),Duge Soki — WP(C)/427/2025

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 25th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC040015182025

Filing Number

WP(C)/879/2025

Filing Date

04-Sep-2025

Registration No

WP(C)/427/2025

Registration Date

04-Sep-2025

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

25-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kuldeep Raj

    Adv. Mustafa Maniruzzaman,Parimal Deka,Parimal Deka, ,S Medhi,Parimal Deka

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Union of India and 8 Ors Advocate - Marto Kato, ,DSGI,GA (AP),Lissing Perme,SC(Power),Duge Soki

  2. 2.The State of AP

  3. 3.The Secretary

  4. 4.SJVN Limited

  5. 5.The Chairman cum Managing Director

  6. 6.The General Manager (HR)

  7. 7.The Director (Personnel)

  8. 8.The Director (Project)

  9. 9.The Director (Finance)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Jun-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung

  3. 25-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak EteView PDF

    Case Summary: Kuldeep Raj v. Union of India & Ors (WP(C)/427/2025) The Gauhati High Court dismissed petitioner Kuldeep Raj's writ petition challenging his reversion from GM(HR)/E8(a) to DGM(HR)/E7. SJVN Limited had withdrawn its Special Incentive Scheme (CHRC 886/2023) following audit objections, reverting 10 employees to original grades. The court held the reversion lawful because: (1) the scheme itself contemplated restoration upon transfer; (2) accrued benefits were protected; and (3) withdrawal was justified by audit findings of DPE guideline violations and excess expenditure. Doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 04-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  5. 04-May-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury

  6. 28-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  7. 28-Apr-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung

  8. 30-Mar-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

  10. 16-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak EteView PDF

  11. 16-Feb-2026

    Admission

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli Vankung

  12. 19-Jan-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Marli VankungView PDF

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi Habung

  14. 16-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Budi HabungView PDF

  15. 16-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson Sailo

  16. 09-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Nelson SailoView PDF

  17. 09-Dec-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury

  18. 24-Nov-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Manish ChoudhuryView PDF

  19. 24-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  20. 24-Nov-2025

    Orders

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

  21. 19-Nov-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  22. 27-Oct-2025

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kardak EteView PDF

  23. 27-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 05-Sep-2025

    Honble Mr. Justice Soumitra SaikiaView PDF

  25. 04-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/427/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Kuldeep Raj v. Union of India & Ors (WP(C)/427/2025) The Gauhati High Court dismissed petitioner Kuldeep Raj's writ petition challenging his reversion from GM(HR)/E8(a) to DGM(HR)/E7. SJVN Limited had withdrawn its Special Incentive Scheme (CHRC 886/2023) following audit objections, reverting 10 employees to original grades. The court held the reversion lawful because: (1) the scheme itself contemplated restoration upon transfer; (2) accrued benefits were protected; and (3) withdrawal was justified by audit findings of DPE guideline violations and excess expenditure. Doctrine of promissory estoppel inapplicable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case