Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Sh Dheeraj Pal & Ors on 27 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~56 & 60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27.05.2025
(56)+ W.P.(C) 7301/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Himanshu Pathak, SPC with
Mr.Amit Singh, Adv.
versus
SH DHEERAJ PAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
(60)+ W.P.(C) 7412/2025
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS.
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Himanshu Pathak, SPC with
Mr.Amit Singh, Adv.
versus
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 32882/2025 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 7301/2025
CM APPL. 33236/2025(exemption) in W.P.(C) 7412/2025
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 7301/2025 & CM APPL. 32881/2025
W.P.(C) 7412/2025 & CM APPL. 33235/2025
2. These petitions have been filed challenging the Order(s) dated
29.08.2024 and 18.09.2024 of the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.823/2020 and
OA No.197/2020, respectively, which allowed the OA(s) filed by
the respondent(s), by quashing the orders impugned therein and
passing the following pari materia directions:
" ...(ii) The respondents are directed to extend
the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in
Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants
in present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits flowing therefrom
including upgradation under MACP Scheme,
pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv) The respondents shall comply with the
aforesaid directions as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Order."
3. Apart from challenging the Order(s) of the learned Tribunal on
merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
OA(s) filed by the respondents before the learned Tribunal were
highly belated and should have been dismissed only on the
ground of delay and laches.
4. He submits that though this Court in WP(C) no.6973/2024, titled
Union of India & Ors. v. Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. vide its
Judgment dated 27.05.2024, has dismissed a similar challenge on
merits, and a Special Leave Petition thereagainst has also been
dismissed vide Order dated 10.12.2024 passed in SLP(C) No.
29726/2024, in another case, that is, in SLP(C) Diary No.
1868/2024, titled Union of India and Ors. v. Ravi Krishna and
Ors, the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition, has left the
question of law open.
5. Further, placing reliance on the Judgment dated 04.11.2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP(C)
no.1373/2021 titled UOI & Ors. v. The Registrar, Central
Administrative Tribunal & Anr., he submits that a similar
challenge on merits has been allowed by the High Court and the
orders passed in the OA(s) has also been dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
7. As far as the challenge on merits is concerned, this Court by its
Judgment in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), has already dismissed a
similar challenge of the petitioners. Furthermore, and as noted
hereinabove, the Special Leave Petition thereagainst has also
been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Being a Bench of co-
ordinate strength, we are bound by the Judgment.
8. On the question of delay and laches, we again find no merit in the
petition.
9. This Court in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), was considering the
OA(s) filed by the respondents therein in the year 2020, wherein
the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on an Order passed by the
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.(C)
17400/2016, against which SLP(C) Diary No. 1868/2024 was
dismissed keeping the question of law open, held that the
respondents therein would be entitled to have their services,
rendered as Reserve Trained Pool from 1983 to 1985, counted for
the purpose calculation of financial benefits. This Court upheld
the learned Tribunal's decision, noting that other similarly
situated individuals had already been granted such benefits for
their service in the Reserve Trained Pool, and there was no
justification for denying the same to the respondents.
10. We agree with the above findings. There cannot be a different
yardstick for different members of the service, requiring each one
of them to approach the Court for similar benefits. In our view,
the Judgment in the present case would apply in rem and
therefore, the benefit should have been extended by the
petitioners to all the similarly situated personnel.
11. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petitions. The same
are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications also stand
disposed of as being rendered infructuous.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 27, 2025
RN/ik
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
