Union of India & Ors. Vs Partha P. Chattaraj & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Union of India & Ors. Vs Partha P. Chattaraj & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of on the petitioners' counsel stating he does not press them; the impugned Tribunal order upheld, with renewal of the respondents' contracts to continue five years at a time subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending in the Supreme Court, and the respondents' rights to challenge any consequential action reserved in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions filed by the Union of India assailing the Tribunal's judgment should continue to be pressed, given the pendency of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 in the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court judgment dated 1 August 2018, and on what terms the impugned order's implementation should stand. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court upheld the impugned order of the Tribunal while disposing of the writ petitions.

Ratio / Principle

As recorded from the statement of the petitioners' counsel (Mr. Anand), the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at the time, subject to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court.

Key takeaways

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 shall remain reserved.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order dated 23.01.2025 of the High Court of Delhi (C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul, JJ) disposing of W.P.(C) 9038/2014 and eight connected writ petitions in which the Union of India assailed a judgment of the Tribunal. 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 were continuing to renew the respondents' contracts for five years at a time and would 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 (footnoted as UOI v Ajeesh A.). He accordingly did not press the petitions, praying only that implementation of the impugned order be made subject to the pending Supreme Court litigation. The Court clarified that it was upholding the impugned order and recorded that the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at the time; if the respondents were aggrieved by any action taken consequent to the disposal of Civil Appeal 16354/2019, their rights to challenge the said decision in accordance with law would remain reserved. With these observations, the writ petitions were 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