Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Neeraj Prasad & Ors on 13 November, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.11.2025
+ W.P.(C) 16695/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Dr.Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan,
CGSC.
versus
NEERAJ PRASAD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Anup Kumar, Ms.Gauri
Subramanium, Mr.Abhishek
Kumar, Ms.Shruti Singh,
Ms.Neha Jaiswal and
Ms.Vertika Vaishnavi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. The respondents have entered appearance in the instant matter.
2. Accordingly, the Caveat stands discharged.
W.P.(C) 16695/2025 & CM APPL. 68507/2025, CM APPL.
3. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated
09.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in
O.A. No.378/2024, titled Neeraj Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India &
Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal has disposed of the said O.A. filed
by the respondents herein with the following directions:
"11. Given the above the present OA is
disposed of with the following directions.
Respondents are directed to hold the regular
DPC for considering the applicants as per
their eligibility for promotion from SSO
Grade-II to SSO Grade-I as per law. The DPC
be held within three months of the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is
clarified that the promotion, if any, shall be
subject to the outcome of the Nos.1746/2021
and 3813/2022."
4. In the present petition, the limited challenge of the petitioners to
the Impugned Order is that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting
only three months time to comply with the direction of holding a
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
5. The petitioners in the writ petition, as also the learned counsel
for the petitioners, submitted that realistically it would take at least
one and a half years to implement the Impugned Order passed by the
learned Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also made an attempt
to distinguish the case of the respondents from the case of the
applicants in O.A. No.2567/2023, titled Randhir Kumar & Ors. v.
Union of India & Anr. decided by the learned Tribunal vide its Order
dated 19.12.2023, by stating that the applicants therein had been
appointed to the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Grade-II) (Junior
Time Scale) prior to or in the year 2016, that is, before the decision of
merger of Junior Scientific Officer with the post of SSO (Grade-II)
had been taken.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who
appears on advance notice, submits that almost a year has passed since
the passing of the Impugned Order. He further submits that the
Impugned Order cannot be challenged only to seek further time to
comply with the same. Such a prayer can always be made by the
petitioners before the learned Tribunal itself by showing justification
for the same. He submits that the Impugned Order also stands
implemented in part, inasmuch as a draft seniority list of SSO Grade-
II has been published by the petitioners on 06.08.2025. He submits
that the case of the respondents is akin to Randhir Kumar (supra), and
the artificial distinction sought to be created does not exist.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
9. From a bare perusal of the grounds urged in the present petition,
it is evident that the petitioners are only seeking further time to
comply with the direction passed by the learned Tribunal in the
Impugned Order. For the said prayer, the petitioners can always
approach the learned Tribunal by showing justification for the same;
therefore, it cannot be a ground for challenging the Impugned Order
before us.
10. Coming to the issue as to whether the case of the petitioners is
akin to Randhir Kumar (supra) decided by the learned Tribunal, in
our view, since the merger has not been approved and the de-merger is
presently pending challenge in the O.As. filed by the respective
officers before the learned Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal has
made the Impugned Order subject to the outcome of the said O.As.,
the direction given in Randhir Kumar (supra), which we are informed
has been implemented by the petitioners, was issued by the learned
Tribunal in the Impugned Order. We, therefore, fail to appreciate the
ground of challenge in the present petition.
11. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same
is dismissed. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to approach
the learned Tribunal with an appropriate application seeking an
extension of time for compliance with the direction issued by the
learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order. Such application, if filed,
shall be considered by the learned Tribunal on its own merit and
without being influenced by our present Judgment.
12. The petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of
in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2025/ns/hs
