Disposed¶4

Union of India & Ors. v. Shikha Gupta

Delhi HC23 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/10349/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court oral order (23.01.2025; C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.) disposing of W.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected writ petitions filed by the Union of India & Ors concerning the Tribunal's judgment under which the respondents' contracts are renewed five years at a time; petitions not pressed; impugned Tribunal order upheld subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending in the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court judgment dated 1 August 2018 in OP (CAT) 4350/2013 (UOI v Ajeesh A.); respondents' rights to challenge post-appeal action reserved in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The Court upheld the impugned Tribunal order and recorded the petitioners' counsel's statement that the renewal of the respondents' contracts would continue to be for five years at a time. ¶3

Union of India & Ors. Vs Shikha Gupta — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the Union of India should continue to press these writ petitions against the Tribunal's judgment under which the respondents' contracts are renewed five years at a time, given the pendency of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 before the Supreme Court.

¶2

Court's answer

The Court upheld the impugned Tribunal order and recorded the petitioners' counsel's statement that the renewal of the respondents' contracts would continue to be for five years at a time.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

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

¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 9038/2014 and eight connected writ petitions (W.P.(C) 10246, 10247, 10344, 10345, 10346, 10347, 10349 and 10356/2015) — Union of India & Ors (petitioners; Amit Anand and S. Bansal) v. Partha P. Chattaraj & Ors, Pradeep Kumar & Ors, Jignesh Jayendra Modi & Ors, Priyanka Dutta & Ors, Ashu and Ors, Payal Abichandani, Shalu Gupta, Shikha Gupta and Chinmay Garg and Ors (respondents; M.K. Bhardwaj and team appearing for several) — High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ.) — Oral order dated 23.01.2025 — Writ petitions by the Union of India & Ors against the judgment of the Tribunal (the 'impugned order'), in view of which the respondents' contracts were being renewed five years at a time — After the matters were heard for some time, counsel for the petitioners stated that, in view of the Tribunal's judgment, the renewals would continue to be for five years at a time, 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 (UOI v Ajeesh A.) — Petitions not pressed — Court upheld the impugned Tribunal order, recorded that renewals would continue to be for five years at a time, and reserved the respondents' right to challenge, in accordance with law, any action taken by the petitioners consequent to the disposal of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 — Writ petitions disposed of.

¶1

$~91 to 99

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9038/2014

¶4

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

¶5

versus

¶6

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

¶7

+ W.P.(C) 10246/2015

¶8

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

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

W.P.(C) 10247/2015

¶12

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

¶13

versus

¶14

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

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

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

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

- W.P.(C) 10344/2015

¶20

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

¶21

versus

¶22

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

¶23

- W.P.(C) 10345/2015

¶24

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶25

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

¶26

versus

¶27

ASHU AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

¶28

- W.P.(C) 10346/2015

¶29

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶30

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

¶31

versus

¶32

PAYAL ABICHANDANI .....Respondent Through:

¶33

- W.P.(C) 10347/2015

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

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

¶36

Page 2 of 5

¶37

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners

¶38

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

¶39

versus

¶40

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

¶41

- W.P.(C) 10349/2015

¶42

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

¶43

versus

¶44

SHIKHA GUPTA .....Respondent Through:

¶45

- W.P.(C) 10356/2015

¶46

UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶47

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

¶48

versus

¶49

CHINMAY GARG AND ORS .....Respondents

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM:

¶52

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

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

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

¶55

Page 3 of 5

¶56

¶57

ORDER (ORAL) 23.01.2025

¶58

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶59

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 .

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

1 UOI v Ajeesh A. Signature Not Verified

¶63

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

¶64

Page 4 of 5

¶65

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

¶66

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶67

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.