Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors vs Sh Mohinder Singh Lohia And Ors on 17 November, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17.11.2025
+ W.P.(C) 9620/2024 & CM APPL. 39479/2024
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD (Services) with
Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms.Aliza Alam and
Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
versus
SH MOHINDER SINGH LOHIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.M. K. Bhardwaj and
Mr.Praveen Kaushik, Advs.
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 05.12.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the,
'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 237/2018, titled Mahinder Singh Lohia v.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed
the O.A. filed by the respondents herein and directed the petitioners to
implement the Order dated 15.09.2009 passed in O.A. No. 169/2009,
which was upheld by this Court vide Judgment dated 01.07.2013
passed in W.P.(C) 2641/2010.
2. The petitioners have assailed the Impugned Order contending
that, in the subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court in Secretary,
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Grade-I DASS Officer's
Association & Ors., (2014) 13 SCC 296, the Supreme Court clarified
that where the promotional grade is in the same pay scale, the
employee is entitled only to one increment under FR-22 and not to a
higher pay scale. The petitioners contend that in view of the said
Judgment, the pay of the respondents was reworked, and their pay was
re-fixed vide Order dated 15.09.2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, therefore,
the learned Tribunal has erred in allowing the above O.A.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
submits that, as far as the respondents are concerned, the matter stood
concluded with the Judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 2641/2010,
which was never challenged by the petitioners. He submits that the
said Judgment was, in fact, implemented by the petitioners vide Order
dated 06.02.2016 and 17.02.2016. Therefore, the fixation of pay could
not have been re-opened by the petitioners.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
6. In the present case, as the Judgment in favour of the
respondents stood implemented by the petitioners and was never
challenged, we are of the view that merely because of the subsequent
Judgment passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners could not have
re-opened the case of the respondents.
7. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we refuse to
interfere with the Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
8. We, however, clarify that the benefit of this Order shall be
confined only to the respondents.
9. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of
in the above terms.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
NOVEMBER 17, 2025/sg/DG
