Delhi High Court

Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 May, 2025

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                  $~98
                  *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                   Date of decision: 01.05.2025
                  +    W.P.(C) 5726/2025
                       RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV                       .....Petitioner
                                        Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Yadav, Adv.

                                               versus

                          UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         .....Respondents
                                        Through:             Mr. Kavindra Kr. Gill, Senior
                                                             Panel Counsel for UOI.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
                  NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 26066/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5726/2025

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following relief:

"a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or direction, directing the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi to expeditiously hear and dispose of OA No. 4674/2024 titled as "Rajendra Prasad Yadav vs Union of India & Ors. preferably within a fixed time-frame considering the Petitioner's impending retirement in July 2025;"

3. From the above prayer, it appears that the petitioner wishes for this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to govern the calendar of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal').

4. The Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2024) 6 SCC 267, has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time- bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. We may quote from the said Judgment as under:

"47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time- bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts.

Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

5. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance which may justify us to issue a direction to the learned Tribunal to grant an expedited hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, we are afraid that we cannot exercise such jurisdiction over the learned Tribunal. It is for the learned Tribunal to consider what matters need expedited hearings.

6. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

MINI PUSHKARNA, J MAY 1, 2025/ab/my/ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any