Union of India challenged a CAT order quashing a pay fixation/recovery order and directing refund of gratuity deductions to the employee. The High Court, noting its own earlier judgment in the same matter had been upheld by the Supreme Court, found no merit and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 08.09.2025
versus
SH HARISH CHANDER RAHEJA .....Respondent Through: Mr.Sachin Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.56367/2025 (Exemption)
CM APPL. 56370/2025
W.P.(C) 13724/2025 & CM APPL. 56368/2025, 56369/2025
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed WP(C) 13724/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:31:43
in O.A. No.1655/2016, titled Harish Chander Raheja vs. Union of India and Ors. , allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions:
“5. In view of the same, we cannot take a divergent view, which has already been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in the W.P.(C) 1239/2025, therefore, impugned order dated 06.01.2015 is quashed and set aside. The pay fixation made prior to the impugned order is restored. The applicant is entitled to a refund of Rs.3.43 lakh, already deducted from the gratuity. We also make it clear that any consequential relief pursuant to the restoration of the order shall follow. This exercise shall be completed within three months from today, failing which the applicant shall be entitled to interest at GPF rates.
6. The prayer for payment of interest is declined. Although reliance was placed on the decision in S K Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 44], we find that the facts of that case are not applicable to the present case.”
“We see absolutely no reason to interfere in the order passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed WP(C) 13724/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:31:43
of the Constitution of India.”
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 8, 2025/Arya/ik
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed WP(C) 13724/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.09.2025 16:31:43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the pay recovery order and restoring pay fixation with refund of gratuity deduction, following a Division Bench judgment of this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India & Ors v. Suresh KumarRelied on¶5
2025:DHC:600-DB
Union of India
Harish Chander Raheja
Navin Chawla
Madhu Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
