UOI and Ors. Vs Chinmay Garg and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

UOI and Ors. Vs Chinmay Garg and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions not pressed; impugned Tribunal order upheld, with recorded continuation of five-year renewals and implementation subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court; respondents' rights to challenge subsequent consequential actions reserved.

Issue for consideration

Whether implementation of the impugned Tribunal order should be made subject to the outcome of the litigation (Civil Appeal 16354/2019) pending before the Supreme Court. +1 more

Court's answer

The Bench clarifies that it is upholding the impugned order and records the statement of counsel for the petitioners that the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at the 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 remain reserved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order dated 23 January 2025 of the Delhi High Court (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul) disposing of W.P.(C) 9038/2014 and connected matters (W.P.(C) 10246/2015, 10247/2015, 10344/2015, 10345/2015, 10346/2015, 10347/2015, 10349/2015, 10356/2015), filed by Union of India & Ors. against respondents including Partha P. Chattaraj, Pradeep Kumar, Jignesh Jayendra Modi, Priyanka Dutta, Ashu, Payal Abichandani, Shalu Gupta, Shikha Gupta and Chinmay Garg. After hearing for some time, counsel for the petitioners (Mr. Amit Anand) submitted that, in view of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the petitioners are continuing to renew the respondents' contracts for five years at a time and will continue to do so, subject 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) 4350/2013 (UOI v Ajeesh A.), and accordingly did not press the petitions, praying that implementation of the impugned order be subject to that pending litigation. The Bench upheld the impugned order, recorded the five-year renewal statement, and clarified that if the respondents are aggrieved by any action taken consequent to the disposal of the Supreme Court appeal, their rights to challenge the said decision in accordance with law stand reserved. The writ petitions were thereupon disposed of.

$~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