Dismissed¶7

Union of India and Ors. v. Workers Union and Anr.

Delhi HC1 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/18129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 18129/2025 | Union of India & Ors. v. Workers Union & Anr. | decided 01.12.2025 | Dress Allowance | washing allowance since 1960 | Composite Dress Allowance @ Rs.5,000/- per annum | 7th CPC recommendations | recovery quashed and refund directed | principles of natural justice | CAT Principal Bench New Delhi O.A. 2366/2023 | CAT Chandigarh Bench: Gurmit Singh v. Military Engineering Service (O.A. No. 060/01228/2019, order dated 05.06.2020); Birbal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 278/2023, order dated 22.07.2024) | Office Memorandum consolidating allowances | special gear/uniform | writ petition dismissed; pending application disposed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed, and the pending application (CM APPL. 75016/2025) also stands disposed of. ¶7

Union of India and Ors. Vs Workers Union and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order dated 30.08.2024 in O.A. 2366/2023 (which allowed the respondents' O.A., quashed the Dress Allowance recovery orders and directed refund) has merit. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed, and the pending application (CM APPL. 75016/2025) also stands disposed of.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The Court found merit in the respondents' submissions that the Office Memorandum merely consolidated various kinds of allowances and that its intent was never to withdraw the washing allowance from respondents who are required to wear special gear/uniform for the performance of their duties.

¶6

Key takeaways

Observation that the petitioners failed to annex copies of the Chandigarh Bench Orders relied upon by the Tribunal, undermining any attempt to distinguish them or show their inapplicability to the facts of the case.obiter¶3

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Madhu Jain, JJ.; oral judgment dated 01.12.2025) dismissed the Union of India's writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench order dated 30.08.2024 in O.A. 2366/2023 (Workers Union & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.), by which the Tribunal had quashed orders recovering Dress Allowance from the respondent workers, held them entitled to the allowance, and directed refund of any recovery made. The Court endorsed the respondents' stand that the Office Memorandum relied upon by the Union merely consolidated various allowances — the workers having received washing allowance since 1960 — and was never intended to withdraw the allowance from personnel required to wear special gear/uniform for their duties. The Court also observed that the petitioners had not annexed copies of the CAT Chandigarh Bench orders (Gurmit Singh v. Military Engineering Service, order dated 05.06.2020 in O.A. No. 060/01228/2019; Birbal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., order dated 22.07.2024 in O.A. No. 278/2023) on which the Tribunal had relied, making it impossible to distinguish them. Pending application disposed of.

¶1

$~34

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 01.12.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 18129/2025

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr.Siddhartha Shankar Ray, CGSC with Mr.Suryadeep Singh, Adv. along with Lt. Col. Sachin Dev Sally.

¶6

versus

¶7

WORKERS UNION AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr.B.L. Wancho, Mr.G.D. Chawla & Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CM APPL. 75017/2025 (Exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶13

W.P.(C) 18129/2025 & CM APPL. 75016/2025

¶14

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 2366/2023, titled Workers Union & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on the Orders passed by the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in Gurmit Singh v. Military Engineering Service (Order dated 05.06.2020 in

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 18129/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 18:14:23

¶18

O.A. No. 060/01228/2019) and in Birbal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Order dated 22.07.2024 in O.A. No. 278/2023), allowed the O.A. filed by the respondents herein and issued the following directions:

¶19

“13. It is quite surprising that all of a sudden, the respondents have passed the impugned orders conveying that there is not even a decision as yet for grant of Dress Allowance to the category of the applicants and as such the payment of allowance already made may be recovered, as clarified by PCDA, Chandigarh, and as such impugned orders of recovery were passed, that too in violation of the principles of natural justice. A perusal of both reproduced OMs would make it clear that a conscious decision was taken by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi and then DoP&T (Nodal Department), pursuant to implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations, for grant of Composite Dress Allowance, instead of various allowances, which were discontinued, @ Rs.5,000/- per annum. The respondents have also not rebutted the averments made by the applicants that they stopped receiving the washing allowances from the date they started getting Dress Allowance @ Rs.5000/-per annum. Be that as it may, the fact remains that since a specific clarification has already been issued by the nodal Department of Personnel & Training, for grant of such allowance to the entitled categories, therefore, the view taken by respondents in withdrawing the same from the applicants and making recovery thereof cannot be sustained and as such the impugned orders in all these cases are quashed and set aside. The applicants are held entitled to grant of Dress Allowance and if any recovery has been made, the same be refunded to the relevant individuals involved in these cases. No costs.”

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 18129/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 18:14:23

¶23

At the outset, we note that although the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the aforesaid Orders of the learned Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, even copies of the same have not been filed along with the present Writ Petition. We fail to understand how the petitioners expected to distinguish these orders or to convince this Court that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case, without even annexing copies thereof.

¶24

Be that as it may, we have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that the respondents have been receiving the washing allowance since 1960, and that the Office Memorandum relied upon by the petitioners merely consolidates various kinds of allowances in this regard; the intent was never to withdraw the allowance from the respondents, who are required to wear special gear/uniform for the performance of their duties.

¶25

We find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶26

For the reasons stated hereinabove, and those recorded by the learned Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶27

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶28

MADHU JAIN, J

¶29

DECEMBER 1, 2025 /rv/DG

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 18129/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:0 4.12.2025 18:14:23

Union of India and Ors. v. Workers Union and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Workers Union and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Sh. Pawan Kamra

Prince Ptc College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Amarjeet Singh

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sher Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shree Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Ptc College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

State Bank of India Vs M/S G I Enterprises through Its Proprietor Ms Pooja Anand & Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through Its Commissioner Vs Sh. Tarkeshwar Tiwari

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Sh. Pawan Kamra

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Amarjeet Singh

Vijay Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh. Mahaveer and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Sushma Rani

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through Its Commissioner Vs Amrit Pal