Union of India & Ors. Vs Jignesh Jayendra Modi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union of India & Ors. Vs Jignesh Jayendra Modi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of as not pressed; impugned Tribunal order upheld, with petitioners to continue renewing the respondents' contracts five years at a time subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court, and respondents' rights to challenge any subsequent action reserved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the Tribunal impugned in these writ petitions - pursuant to which the respondents' contracts are renewed five years at a time - should be upheld, and on what terms the petitions should be disposed of given the pending Supreme Court appeal (Civil Appeal 16354/2019).

Court's answer

The court upholds the impugned Tribunal order and records the petitioners' undertaking that the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at a time.

Ratio / Principle

If the respondents are aggrieved by any action taken by the petitioners consequent to the disposal of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court, their rights to challenge the said decision in accordance with law shall remain reserved.

Key takeaways

With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of, the petitioners having stated that they do not press the petitions.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of the High Court of Delhi (Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul) dated 23.01.2025 disposing of W.P.(C) 9038/2014 and eight connected writ petitions in which Union of India & Ors. had impugned a judgment of the Tribunal pursuant to which the respondents' contracts were being renewed five years at a time. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in view of the Tribunal's judgment, the petitioners would continue such renewals, subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 1 August 2018 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) 4350/2013 (footnoted as UOI v Ajeesh A.), and did not press the petitions. The court upheld the impugned order, recorded the petitioners' undertaking as to five-yearly renewals, clarified that the respondents' rights to challenge any action taken consequent to the disposal of the Supreme Court appeal remain reserved, and disposed of the writ petitions.

$~91 to 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 9038/2014

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

PARTHA P. CHATTARAJ & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 10246/2015

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

PRADEEEP KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.

W.P.(C) 10247/2015

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

JIGNESH JAYENDRA MODI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.01.2025 16:41:37

Page 1 of 5

Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.

- W.P.(C) 10344/2015

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

PRIYANKA DUTTA & ORS .....Respondents Through:

- W.P.(C) 10345/2015

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

ASHU AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

- W.P.(C) 10346/2015

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

PAYAL ABICHANDANI .....Respondent Through:

- W.P.(C) 10347/2015

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.01.2025 16:41:37

Page 2 of 5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

SHALU GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.

- W.P.(C) 10349/2015

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

SHIKHA GUPTA .....Respondent Through:

- W.P.(C) 10356/2015

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S. Bansal, Advs.

versus

CHINMAY GARG AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.01.2025 16:41:37

Page 3 of 5

%

ORDER (ORAL) 23.01.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. After these matters were heard for some time, Mr. Amit Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are, in view of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, continuing to renew the respondents’ contract for five years at a time and will continue to do so, subject, however, to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 1 August 2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) 4350/2013¹ .

2. In that view of the matter, he does not press these petitions but prays that the implementation of the impugned order be made subject to the outcome of the litigation pending before the Supreme Court.

3. We clarify that, therefore, while we are upholding the impugned order, and recording the statement of Mr. Anand that the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at the time, if the respondents are aggrieved by any action taken by the petitioners consequent to the disposal of the Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, their rights to challenge the said decision in accordance with law shall remain reserved.

1 UOI v Ajeesh A. Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.01.2025 16:41:37

Page 4 of 5

4. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

JANUARY 23, 2025 /aky

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters KUMAR Signing Da te:2 8.01.2025 16:41:37

Page 5 of 5