SMT NIRAMAL DEVI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
W.P.(C)/16226/2024 · 2026-01-07
Madhu Jain, Navin Chawla
Writ Petition (Civil)body2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2150 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 2150 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~SB-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16226/2024
SMT NIRMAL DEVI
.....Petitioner Through: Mr.Shanker Raju and Mr.Nilansh Gaur, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD (Services) with Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
O R D E R %
27.02.2026 REVIEW PET. 54/2026
1. This review petition has been filed seeking review of our
judgment dated 07.01.2026, passed in the above Writ Petition, to a limited extent that in paragraph 25 of the judgment, the words ‘post of Lecturer’ be substituted with ‘post of Reader’.
2. We find that there is, in fact, a typographical error in our
judgment dated 07.01.2026, as we have in paragraph 2 of the
judgment already recorded that the late husband of the petitioner had been granted proforma promotion to the post of Reader w.e.f.
01.12.1996. Therefore, it was held that the husband of the petitioner was entitled to pension and the petitioner was entitled to family pension, calculated on the basis of the petitioner’s late husband holding the post of Reader. However, due to the typographical error, instead of ‘Post of Reader’, ‘Post of Lecturer’ was typed in paragraph Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:28.02.2026 18:37:49 Signature Not Verified
25 of our judgment. Accordingly, paragraph 25 is modified and shall now read as under:
“25. We, however, further clarify that the pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner/family pension of the petitioner shall be calculated on the basis of the fact that the husband of the petitioner had superannuated from service at the post of Reader.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that there is a typographical error in the title of the judgment, inasmuch as the petitioner has been referred to as ‘Smt. Niramal Devi’ instead of ‘Smt. Nirmal Devi’.
4. As this is also a typographical error, the same is, accordingly, corrected to reflect that Smt. Nirmal Devi is the petitioner.
5. Let a copy of this order be uploaded as a corrigendum to our
judgment dated 07.01.2026.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J FEBRUARY 27, 2026/ns/Yg By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:28.02.2026 18:37:49