Delhi High Court
Raghav Gupta And Others vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 January, 2022
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:14.01.2022
+ W.P.(C) 873/2022
RAGHAV GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr Pradeep Dahiya, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mr Danish Faraz Khan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):-
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2020,
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, "the Tribunal"] in
OA No. 3701/2017.
2. According to Mr Pradeep Dahiya, who appears on behalf of the
petitioners, via the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of, not only
OA No. 3701/2017 but also OA No. 3913/2017.
2.1. Mr Dahiya, in this context, draws our attention to the judgment dated
08.12.2021, passed in the W.P.(C) No.12829/2021. This judgment was
rendered by this Court qua the very same impugned order of the Tribunal,
albeit in OA No. 3913/2017.
3. Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, who has entered appearance on behalf of the
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:18.01.2022
13:41:18
respondents, says that, in view of what has been noticed by this Court, he
cannot argue to the contrary.
3.1. Given this circumstance, Mr Ahluwalia says that no formal reply
needs to be filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. Therefore, having regard to the record, the writ petition is taken up for
hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
5. The relevant part of the judgment dated 08.12.2021, referred
hereinabove, is extracted hereafter:
"1. On 15.11.2021, we had indicated as to, what was problematic with
the impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in OA No.
3913/2017, from which the present petition arises.
1.1 For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said order
dated 15.11.2021 is extracted hereafter:
"1. The petitioners had approached the Central Administrative
Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟) with a grievance that they had
not been granted the benefit of Senior Time Scale with effect from
01.01.2017, in terms of various Office Memorandums issued by the
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), in this behalf.
1.1. The petitioners claim to be Indian Revenue Service officers,
belonging to the 2013 batch.
2. The respondents, it appears, took the position that the aforesaid
benefit was not granted, in cases where there was functional
upgradation.
2.1. Counsel for the petitioners says that, the stand taken by the
respondents is erroneous.
3. Besides this, we may note that, on 27.10.2020, the Tribunal
passed the following order in O.A. No.3913/2017:
"OA is dismissed. Reasons would follow."
3.1. This order was passed by a bench comprising Mohd. Jamshed,
Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman), while the
impugned order, which is also dated 27.10.2020, whereby reasons
have been furnished has been passed by Justice L. Narasimha
Reddy (Chairman) and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A).
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:18.01.2022
13:41:18
3.2 It appears to be a case where one bench heard the matter while
another furnished reasons for the decision in the O.A.
4. Issue notice.
4.1. Mr. Piyush Gaur, who appears for Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
4.2. On steps being taken, notice shall issue to respondent no. 2, via
all permissible modes, including e-mail.
4.3. In addition, service will be effected on the standing counsel for
respondent no. 2.
5. List the matter on 25.11.2021."
2. Mr Ripudaman Bhardwaj, who appears on behalf of the
respondents, cannot but accept that, one Bench of the Tribunal i.e.,
comprising Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) and Justice L. Narasimha
Reddy (Chairman) heard the matter, and the other Bench of the
Tribunal i.e., consisting of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman)
and Ms Aradhana Johri, Member (A) furnished the reasons.
2.1 To our minds, in an adjudicatory process the person(s) who hear
an aggrieved party must decide and render reasons. Concededly, this
hasn't occurred in the instant case; one Bench rendered the decision
while the other Bench gave the reasons.
2.2. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be
sustained.
3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, is set aside.
3.1. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for de novo hearing.
3.2. The petitioners will have the liberty to move the concerned Bench,
for an expedited hearing in the matter.
4. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
(emphasis is ours)
5.1. To our minds, the same reasoning will apply qua the order impugned
in the present writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Tribunal in
OA No. 3701/2017 is set aside.
6.1. The directions contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 08.12.2021
will apply mutatis mutandis in this matter, as well.
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:18.01.2022
13:41:18
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 14, 2022/rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI
Signing Date:18.01.2022
13:41:18
