Monday, 04, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rk Rastogi vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 463 Del

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 463 Del
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2022

Delhi High Court
Rk Rastogi vs Union Of India And Others on 14 February, 2022
                            $~1
                            *   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                            %                                         Decision delivered on: 14.02.2022

                            +      W.P.(C) 13654/2021
                                   RK RASTOGI                                                    ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through:       Mr U Srivastava, Mr Sourabh Sharma
                                                                      & Mr Anoop Kumar, Advs.
                                                 versus
                                   UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                   ..... Respondents
                                                 Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr Standing Counsel
                                                          for Railways with Mr Preet Singh and
                                                          Mr Vipin Choudhary, Advs.

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
                            RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.( ORAL):

                            1.     Issue notice.
                            1.1. Mr       Jagjit   Singh    accepts      service   on    behalf           of   the
                            respondents/Railways.
                            2.     With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is
                            taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
                            3.     The writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2021,
                            passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in
                            O.A. No. 149/2021.
                            3.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal for
                            pay fixation, and, in this context, had laid challenge to the orders dated
                            08.05.2018 and 05.10.2020.


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI   W.P. (C) 13654/2021                                              Pg. 1 of 3
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:21.02.2022
16:47:04
                             3.2. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal has,
                            broadly, adverted to the various OAs that the petitioner has filed from time
                            to time to agitate his rights, which included the challenge to the order of
                            dismissal and seeking payment of back wages and consequential benefits.
                            3.3. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner succeeded in his legal battle
                            for reinstatement and has also received 50% of the back wages payable to
                            him. The more recent legal battle that the petitioner initiated concerned pay
                            fixation.
                            4.     The petitioner's request for pay fixation was declined by the
                            respondents via the impugned orders referred to hereinabove, on the ground
                            that he had not exercised the option in that behalf, within 1 month from the
                            date of issuance of the order of promotion i.e., 28.10.2002. The Tribunal,
                            however, in the impugned order, has not dealt with the contentions raised by
                            the petitioner. In fact, the Tribunal, we are told, dismissed the petitioner's
                            O.A. i.e., O.A. No. 149/2021 at the admission stage itself, with the following
                            observations:-
                                          "Coming to the present OA, the first order challenged in
                                    the one, in which the applicant was informed about the factum
                                    of the claim for MACP being under consideration. The second
                                    order is the one in which the MACP was granted. For any
                                    person with the complicated record as that of the applicant,
                                    the things would have been serious. More and more the
                                    respondents tried to satisfy and pacify the applicant, he is
                                    emerging as a source of nuisance for the entire department.
                                    We would have imposed heavy costs in this OA, but for the
                                    polite attitude exhibited by the learned counsel. We dismiss
                                    the OA with a serious warning that if the applicant continues
                                    with the same trend, heavy costs will be imposed, apart from
                                    directing initiation of other steps that are available in law. We
                                    make it clear that it shall be open to the respondents to take


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI   W.P. (C) 13654/2021                                           Pg. 2 of 3
KUMARI SHARMA
Signing Date:21.02.2022
16:47:04
                                     action, if he continues his irresponsible acts. The Head of
                                    Department shall keep watch on the applicant".

                            4.1. In our view, this is not a satisfactory disposal of the O.A. preferred by
                            the petitioner. More importantly, the fact that the petitioner approached the
                            Tribunal time and again to agitate his legal rights cannot be allowed to work
                            to his disadvantage.
                            5.     Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted
                            to the Tribunal, for a fresh hearing in the petitioner's O.A. i.e., O.A. No.
                            149/2021.
                            6.     Needless to add, nothing stated hereinabove will impact the merits of
                            the case.
                            7.     The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                                                                RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

TALWANT SINGH, J.

FEBRUARY 14, 2022/nk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI W.P. (C) 13654/2021 Pg. 3 of 3 KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:21.02.2022 16:47:04

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter