Dismissed¶21

Union of India & Anr. v. Shri Vinod Prasad & Ors.

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRM Cash Award; one additional mark; Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC); cut-off date 31.03.2015; award granted 27.04.2015; Loco Pilot Goods; O.A. No.250/2016; Central Administrative Tribunal; Review Application dismissed; certiorari; writ jurisdiction; plausible view; reconsideration of promotion; other candidates' candidature; question of law kept open; Union of India v. Vinod Prasad; W.P.(C) 1186/2026; Delhi High Court; Division Bench (Kshetarpal & Mahajan, JJ.); order dated 18.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Although the DRM Cash Award might have been given subsequently, the promotion order was passed in December 2015; hence the DRM Cash Award granted to Respondent No.1 was required to be taken into account while holding the DPC. ¶16

Union of India & Anr. Vs Shri Vinod Prasad & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal correctly held Respondent No.1 entitled to one additional mark for DRM Cash Award and directed reconsideration of his promotion, although the award was granted on 27.04.2015 after the cut-off date of 31.03.2015. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

While reconsidering the case of Respondent No.1, the Petitioners are entitled to take into consideration the candidature of various other candidates.

¶20

Key takeaways

The Tribunal took a plausible view and there is no ground to interfere with the Impugned Orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction.ratio¶20
The question of law with respect to taking into account the DRM Cash Award in a particular manner is kept open.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (certiorari) by Union of India assailing Central Administrative Tribunal orders dated 31.05.2023 and 25.09.2025, whereby Respondent No.1, working as Loco Pilot Goods, was held entitled to one additional mark for DRM Cash Award earned for excellent service during 2014-15, and the Department was directed to reconsider his case for promotion: HELD, though the award was granted on 27.04.2015 after the cut-off date of 31.03.2015, the promotion order was passed in December 2015, and therefore the DRM Cash Award was required to be taken into account while holding the DPC; on reconsideration, the Petitioners are entitled to take into consideration the candidature of various other candidates; the Tribunal having taken a plausible view, no interference was called for in writ jurisdiction; the question of law as to the particular manner of taking the DRM Cash Award into account was expressly kept open. Petition dismissed; pending applications closed.

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1186/2026, CAV 39/2026 and CM APPL. 5777/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC with Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

SHRI VINOD PRASAD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Adv. for R-1[appearance not given.]

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶9

Through the present Petition, the Petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by assailing the correctness of the orders dated 31.05.2023 and 25.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Orders‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟]. Vide the Impugned Order dated 31.05.2023, the O.A. filed by the Respondent No.1 was allowed by holding him entitled to one additional mark for DRM Cash Award and with directions to the Petitioners to reconsider the case of the Respondent No.1 for promotion. The Review Application filed by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 25.09.2025.

¶10

The Respondent No.1 is stated to be working as Loco Pilot Goods. He was awarded DRM Cash Award for his excellent service during the period of 2014-15. As per the policy of the Petitioners, the employees are entitled to one additional mark for a DRM Cash Award

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 21/02/2026 at 12:10:20

¶13

for their excellent service, however, while the Departmental Promotion Committee („DPC‟) was being held, the said additional mark was inadvertently not claimed by Respondent No.1. Thereafter, he filed O.A. No.250/2016, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in paragraph no.14, issued the followed directions:

¶14

“14. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the case and the applicant is entitled for one extra on mark. Accordingly, we allow this OA and set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2015 and promotion order dated 22.12.2015 qua the private respondent No. 4 herein by directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant, as observed above, as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, he shall not be entitled for any monetary benefits. No costs.”

¶15

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners admits that promotion of the Respondent No.3/Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma has been withdrawn by the Department. It is submitted that the DRM Cash Award was granted on 27.04.2015, whereas, the cut-off date for considering the said award was 31.03.2015. Learned counsel further submits that there may be other candidates also who would be entitled to a similar additional mark.

¶16

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the Petitioners. 5. It is evident that the Respondent No.1 has been awarded the DRM Cash Award for his excellent service during the period of 201415. The said award might have been given subsequently; however, the promotion order was passed in December 2015. Hence, the DRM Cash Award granted to the Respondent No.1 was required to be taken into account while holding the DPC.

¶17

With regard to the second submission, it will be noted here that the Tribunal has only directed the Petitioners to re-consider the case of

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 21/02/2026 at 12:10:20

¶20

the Respondent No.1. While reconsidering, the Petitioners are entitled to take into consideration the candidature of various other candidates. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has taken a plausible view and finds no ground to interfere with the Impugned Orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶21

The present Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

However, the question of law with respect to taking into account the DRM Cash Award in a particular manner is kept open. 10. The pending applications also stand closed.

¶23

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶24

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶25

FEBRUARY 18, 2026 jai/kb

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 21/02/2026 at 12:10:20

Union of India & Anr. v. Shri Vinod Prasad & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Anr. v. Shri Vinod Prasad & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/Sverandah Moonshine through Its Director Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pancham Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Garg & Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

M/S Magus Consortium Orchid Avenue Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Mas Developers Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Handfab a Living Vs M/S J P Textiles

Union of India & Ors. Vs Molshree Aggarwal & Anr.

Rajesh Meena Vs Union of India & Ors.