High Court of Delhi (Navin Chawla & Renu Bhatnagar JJ) — W.P.(C) 5125/2025, decided orally on 23.04.2025 — Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Dhiman. The Union challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) order dated 24.09.2024 in O.A. No. 2597/2023 ('Ashish Dhiman v. Union of India & Ors.'), whereby the Tribunal had (i) quashed the orders dated 11.07.2023 and 19.12.2019 and the Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2016, (ii) directed that the respondent's late father, Shri Suresh Kumar (casual appointee in 1987; Khallasi on substitute basis w.e.f. 26.04.1988; regularised w.e.f. 31.12.1996), be treated as retired on voluntary retirement under the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f. 02.06.2016, and (iii) ordered that the respondent be taken back in service immediately as helper Khallasi (appointed w.e.f. 02.06.2016) with all consequential benefits. Background: a recheck of leave account revealed 'leave without pay' had been counted as 670 instead of 1056 days; excluding the excess, the father would have rendered only 19 years 5 months 6 days of service till 31.12.2014 against the 20-year minimum. The Union thereupon issued SCN dated 09.09.2016 and vide order dated 22.11.2016 withdrew the VRS and cancelled the respondent's appointment; after Tribunal orders dated 09.09.2020 (O.A. Nos. 4459/2018 & 99/2020) and 04.05.2023 (O.A. No. 1023/2021 — quashing the order dated 15.02.2021 and remanding, with direction to consider the Hon'ble High Court's observation in its judgment dated 25.01.2019 in WP (C) 10279/2017), the Union finally rejected appointment by order dated 11.07.2023. Tribunal reasoning in the Impugned Order: relying on Rules 31 and 32, Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, casual and substitute-basis service counts towards qualifying service; 'leave without pay' does not; yet the father had completed qualifying service, his VRS was rightly accepted and the respondent rightly appointed. Held: (a) counsel's contention that 'leave without pay' should not be counted was misplaced, since the Tribunal itself had accepted that very position; (b) there was no challenge to the counting of casual and substitute-basis service, on which counting the father had completed the 20 years required under the LARSGESS scheme; accordingly the writ petition lacked merit — dismissed.
