Notable Cases

Represented the petitioner in a compassionate appointment matter and secured a setting aside of the impugned memo dated 09.02.2021, which had stood in the way of the petitioner's claim. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under the extant policy within eight weeks — a successful challenge to an adverse administrative decision and restoration of the petitioner's claim for consideration.

The strongest publicly visible constitutional / civil liberties success. The High Court allowed the batch and declared the Police Standing Orders — to the extent they enabled opening and continuation of rowdy sheets, suspect sheets, history sheets and surveillance — as void. The Court directed that all rowdy sheets in the batch be closed immediately and held that the police cannot continue such intrusive surveillance without sanction of law. A major protection of privacy and personal liberty under constitutional standards.

Argued for the main contesting respondent in an election dispute. The High Court set aside the Election Tribunal's order dated 28.01.2022, allowed W.P. No. 5617 of 2022, and dismissed W.P. Nos. 6145 and 4527 of 2022. A decisive result in a contested election matter involving proof, admissibility of documents, and age-related disqualification issues.

Represented employees seeking old pensionary scheme / GPF benefits on the ground that they were recruited against earlier notified vacancies but were being denied the benefit merely because appointments were treated as made in 2002. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to respondents 3 and 5 to take an appropriate decision regarding extension of GPF benefits within three months — compelling the Government to decide the issue formally.

The larger batch version of the old pension / GPF litigation. Argued that employees appointed against pre-existing notified vacancies were being wrongly denied old pension benefits. The High Court directed respondents 3 and 5 to take an appropriate decision regarding extension of GPF benefits, strictly as per rules, within three months — securing judicial directions for decision-making beyond mere representation.

The follow-up enforcement stage of the GPF / old pension litigation. The contempt batch recorded that the earlier writ petitions had directed the authorities to decide the issue of extension of pensionary scheme benefit (GPF), and that the Government later rejected the proposal. The High Court left it open to the petitioners to challenge the rejection letter dated 23.07.2025 — demonstrating post-order enforcement and onward challenge strategy.

Represented retired employees whose terminal benefits had been withheld for years — seeking release of gratuity, leave encashment and other retirement benefits. Argued that despite unblemished service and retirement without disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners had still not been paid. A serious retirement-benefits matter argued on behalf of senior citizen retirees.