Allowed

Rehan Ahmed Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Jul 2025LPA/418/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the first appeal against an order dismissing a writ petition regarding pensionary benefits. The Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment, holding that a new cause of action existed due to a subsequent Office Memorandum, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; Writ Petition restored; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Rehan Ahmed Khan Vs Union of India & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~29

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 04^th July, 2025

¶4

- LPA 418/2025

¶5

REHAN AHMED KHAN .....Appellant Through: M. Tarique Siddiqui, Mr. Abhishek K. Tanwar, Md. Bilal, Mr. Fajallu Rehman and Ms. Lakshmi Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Viplav Acharya, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI Mr.Pritish Sabharwal, SC for R-4 with Ms. Rashi Wadhwa, Adv.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶11

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

CM APPL. 38529/2025 (Exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

LPA 418/2025

¶15

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 5496/2025 titled Rehan Ahmed Khan v. Union of India & Ors., dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶16

By the said writ petition, the appellant had prayed for the

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Signed LPA 418/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:08.07.2025 11:37:04

¶20

following prayers:

¶21

"(a) an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus to respondents to consider petitioners' past services at respondent no. 4/ Jamia Millia Islamia from the date of petitioner's initial/ first appointment on 19.07.2002 as Lecturer (against leave vacancy) which continued without interruption till petitioner's permanent appointment on 26.10.2005 (against the post advertised on 25.06.2002), as qualifying service for enabling him for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (GPF) under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021) and grant the consequential pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules.

¶22

(b) an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus declaring that New Pension Scheme notified by the Govt. of India vide gazette notification F.No.S/7/2003ECB&PR dated 22.12.2003 for 'new entrants' to Central Govt. service from 01.01.2004 (except to Armed Forces in the first stage) is not binding on the employees in service prior to 01.01.2004 and as such not binding on the petitioner."

¶23

The appellant had placed reliance on an Office Memorandum No.28/30/2004-P&PW(B) dated 11.06.2020 (hereinafter referred to as OM dated 11.06.2020), however, the learned Single Judge, by the Impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by simply placing reliance on the Judgment dated 03.03.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 1964/2015 titled Rehan Ahmad Khan v. Jamia Milia Islamia Central University & Anr. , a writ petition which had earlier been filed by the appellant seeking similar relief, which had been rejected by the said judgment.

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

Signed LPA 418/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:08.07.2025 11:37:04

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that O.M. dated 11.06.2020 gave a new cause of action to the appellant to maintain his prayer.

¶28

Though this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents, we find that there is no finding by the learned Single Judge on the applicability or otherwise of the O.M. dated 11.06.2020 to the facts of the appellant. As the said Office Memorandum had been issued post the dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant, in our view, this gave a new cause of action to the appellant and, therefore, the mere dismissal of the earlier writ petition could not have been a ground to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant without considering the effect of the said Office Memorandum and if the same applied to the facts of the appellant.

¶29

Keeping in view the above, we set aside the Impugned judgment dated 29.04.2025. The writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 5496/2025, is restored to its original number and remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication.

¶30

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the plea of the appellant based on the O.M. dated 11.06.2020, and the application thereof to the facts of the appellant shall be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merits.

¶31

We further make it clear that the only issue before the learned Single Judge would be the application of O.M. dated 11.06.2020 to the facts of the appellant and the subsequent representations made by

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

Signed LPA 418/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:08.07.2025 11:37:04

¶35

the appellant.

¶36

The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 29^th July, 2025.

¶37

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶38

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶39

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶40

JULY 4, 2025 Pallavi/kj/SJ

¶41

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Page 4 of 4

¶44

Signed LPA 418/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:08.07.2025 11:37:04

Rehan Ahmed Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehan Ahmed Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Rahul Shrotriya

Krishan Das Choudhry Vs Rajesh Alias Raj Chaudhary & Ors.

Jaidev Kesri, Dig Jamshedpur Range-Jsr Vs Union of India & Ors.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Saroj Nagar

Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner Vs Rohit Goel & Ors.

Arti Sharma Vs Gnctd and Ors.