[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
The Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And ... vs Desh Raj Rana & Ors on 3 December, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 12866/2023 & CM APPL. 50680/2023
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, SPC with
Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal,
Mr.Sachin Singh & Ms.Lipika
Chawla, Advs.
versus
DESH RAJ RANA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Aanchal Anand, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
'Tribunal') in O.A. No.1809/2019, titled Desh Raj Rana & Ors. v.
The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Ors., whereby the
learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein
with the following directions:
"6. In the light of this discussion and the facts
and circumstances detailed above, the present
Original Application is allowed and the
respondents are directed to grant the benefit of
ACP as per the entitlement of the applicants
within the period of eight weeks of receipt of
copy of this order. The applicants shall also be
entitled, during this period, to receive the
arrears of salary which may accrue to them
subsequent to the re-fixation of their pay
pursuant to this order. However, they shall not
be entitled to claim any interest on such a
payment."
2. While passing the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal placed
reliance on the Order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the learned
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A.No.24-HP/2010, titled Lekh
Ram Verma v. Union of India & Ors., which was affirmed by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide its Judgment dated 16.12.2015
in CWP No. 1646/2012.
3. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh failed to appreciate various aspects of the matter
and placed reliance merely on certain information obtained by the
applicants therein under the Right to Information Act, 2005, we are of
the view that since the said order has already been implemented qua
the applicants in that case, the respondents herein, being similarly
situated to the applicants therein before the learned Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, cannot be discriminated against merely because
the two litigations have taken different trajectories.
4. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case, we do not
deem it appropriate to interfere with the Impugned Order in the
exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, make it clear that the present order shall not be treated
as a precedent.
5. The present petition and the accompanying application are,
accordingly, dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
DECEMBER 3, 2025/Arya/DG
