Dismissed¶22

Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Ors. v. Brijendra Singh Verma

Delhi HC7 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grade Pay Rs. 5400/-; completion of four years of service; M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors., Madras High Court W.P.(C) 13225/2010 dated 06.09.2010; judgment in rem not in personam; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A 570/2024; Brijendra Singh Verma v. Union of India; Union of India through Revenue Secretary; writ petition dismissed; CM APPL. 20311/2025 exemption allowed; Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar; decided 07.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

As the direction in the Impugned Order is only to consider the case of the respondent in terms of the M. Subramaniam judgment, it is for the petitioners to first consider the same and pass an appropriate order upon such consideration. ¶20

Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Ors. Vs Brijendra Singh Verma — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order dated 18.04.2024 of the learned Tribunal, directing the respondents to consider the respondent's claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years of service, warrants interference by this Court. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The only issue decided by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order was that the judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam is one passed in rem and not in personam, and there can be no cavil to the same.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Court found no merit in the present petition warranting interference with the Impugned Order at this stage.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar, JJ.) dismissed W.P.(C) 4410/2025 filed by Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Ors. challenging the order dated 18.04.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 570/2024 (Brijendra Singh Verma (B.S. Verma) v. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the Tribunal had allowed the respondent's OA and directed the respondents to consider his claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years of service on the analogy of the Madras High Court judgment in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 13225/2010, dated 06.09.2010). The Court held that the only issue decided by the Tribunal was that the M. Subramaniam judgment is one passed in rem and not in personam, with which there could be no cavil; and since the impugned direction was merely to consider the respondent's case in terms of that judgment, it was for the petitioners to first consider the claim and pass an appropriate order. The petition, alongwith the pending application, was dismissed.

¶1

$~117

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4410/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REVENUE SECRETARY & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr.Vinay Yadav, SPC with Mr.Ansh Kalra, Ms.Kamna Beharni and Mr.Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. for UOI

¶6

versus

¶7

BRIJENDRA SINGH VERMA .....Respondent

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 07.04.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 20311/2025 (Exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

W.P.(C) 4410/2025 & CM APPL. 20310/2025

¶13

This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.A No. 570/2024 titled “ Brijendra Singh Verma (B.S. Verma) v. Union of India & Ors. ”, disposing of the OA filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions:

¶14

“3. In view of what has been outlined above, the present OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim and representation of the applicant for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:00:37

¶17

years of service on the analogy of the judgment quoted verbatim above, which has further relied upon the judgment of M. Subramaniam (supra).

¶18

4. These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

¶19

It is the case of the petitioners that the case of the respondent is not covered by the Judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. (C) No. 13225/2010 dated 06.09.2010 titled M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors.

¶20

We are of the opinion that as the direction in the Impugned Order is only to consider the case of the respondent in terms of the said Judgment, it is for the petitioners to first consider the same and to pass an appropriate order upon such consideration. The only issue decided by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order is that the Judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (supra) is one passed in rem and not in personam . There can be no cavil to the same.

¶21

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition as warranting interference with the Impugned Order at this stage.

¶22

The petition, alongwith the pending application, is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶24

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶25

APRIL 7, 2025/sg/ik

¶26

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:00:37

Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Ors. v. Brijendra Singh Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through Revenue Secretary & Ors. v. Brijendra Singh Verma

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

D. K. Gupta (Huf) Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi & Ors.

M/S Maruti Trading Co. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Class Ii, Avato & Anr.

M/S. Aom Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Dtidcl) & Anr.

Ayush Garg Vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

Santosh Kr Shiva Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Anr.

Sridhar Patra Vs Lokpal of India

Smt Dixita Ghai Vs Shri Harshul Ghai

Union of India & Ors. Vs Pms Suryanarayana & Anr.

Pyare Lal Gupta Vs Som Bala Alias Suman Khandelwal & Ors.

Raminder Singh Vs Hargun Kaur Sahni

Staff Selection Commission and Ors. Vs Ashif Ali

Rakesh Kumar Mittal Vs Gl Tandon and Ors.