Allowed

Runa Mondal v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC31 Aug 2026W.P.(C)/12513/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to preserve records, recall a respondent officer from his posting, and correct official diplomatic documents reflecting the wrong spouse. The Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representations on these grounds within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to decide the petitioner's representations regarding the matter and correct official responses within four weeks.

Runa Mondal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010403532026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 12513/2026, CM APPL. 57992/2026 & CM APPL. 57994/2026

¶5

RUNA MONDAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Counsel (appearance not given).

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Mr. Vanshul Pali, GP with Mr Vineet Negi, Ms Kavya Shukla, Mr Vibhav V Nath, Ms Riya Garg, Mr Kartik Khullar and Ms Ayushika Mishra, Advocates for R-1 to R-4. SI Balram PS Mnagolpuri.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 31.08.2026

¶12

CM APPL. 57993/2026 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(C) 12513/2026, CM APPL. 57992/2026 & CM APPL. 57994/2026

¶16

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

¶17

“(a) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representations dated 07.05.2026 and 08.05.2026

¶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 07/09/2026 at 14:03:43

¶20

(Annexures P-17 to P-23) within such time as this Hon’ble Court may fix, and to dispose of the said representations by a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the Petitioner.

¶21

(b) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to cause the original Impugned Note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024, the Embassy file relating to Ms. Aritra Singha, and the official emails, phones and travel records of Respondent No. 5 from 1st January 2024 onwards, to be sealed and preserved.

¶22

(c) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4, as the Head of the Mission, to preserve and to produce before this Hon’ble Court all records of the Embassy of India, Dushanbe relating to Respondent No. 5 and to Respondent No. 6, including the four Impugned Note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024 and the files connected therewith, and to act upon the Petitioner’s representations dated 07.05.2026 and 08.05.2026 at the level of the Mission.

¶23

(d) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to place on the record of this Hon’ble Court a status report on the action taken on the Petitioner’s representations, under intimation to the Petitioner.

¶24

(e) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to disclose and to place on the record of this Hon’ble Court whether, pursuant to the Petitioner’s representations dated 34 07.05.2026 and 08.05.2026, any complaint, vigilance or disciplinary file or proceeding has been registered or opened against Respondent No. 5, and what action, if any, has been taken against Respondent No. 5 in respect thereof, together with the relevant records and file notings, under intimation to the Petitioner. (f) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2, in order to preserve the integrity of the inquiry and to address the continuing security risk pleaded herein, to recall Respondent No. 5 from his present posting at the Embassy of India, Dushanbe, pending consideration of the Petitioner’s representations. In the alternative, this Hon’ble Court may direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to consider and decide the question of the recall of Respondent No. 5 by a reasoned order within such time as this Hon’ble Court may fix.

¶25

(g) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 1, as the competent disciplinary authority, after obtaining such vigilance advice from Respondent No. 3 as may be appropriate, to consider and decide by a reasoned order, within such time as this Hon’ble Court may fix, whether disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ought to be initiated against

¶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 07/09/2026 at 14:03:43

¶28

Respondent No. 5 for breach of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in particular Rule 3 and Rule 21 thereof, under intimation to the Petitioner.

¶29

(h) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to correct the official records and documentation of the Government of India and of the Embassy of India, Dushanbe, so as to reverse the arbitrary change brought about by the four Impugned Note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024, by restoring the Petitioner to her status as the lawful and only wife of Respondent No. 5 and by removing and expunging the spousal status wrongly accorded therein to Respondent No. 6, there being no decree of divorce 35 dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, and to communicate the steps so taken to the Petitioner.

¶30

(i) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to consider and decide, by a reasoned order and within such time as this Hon’ble Court may fix, what steps ought to be taken to remove the representation/status of Ms. Aritra Singha as the spouse of Respondent No. 5 contained in the four Impugned Note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024 issued under the seal of the Embassy of India to the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan, and to communicate the decision so taken to the Petitioner.

¶31

(j) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to consider and decide, by a reasoned order and within such time as this Hon’ble Court may fix, what steps ought to be taken to reverse and to correct the entries and changes made in the official records and documentation of the Government of India and of its Missions, whereby Ms. Aritra Singha has been recorded or represented as the wife or spouse of Respondent No. 5, including the entries relating to the diplomatic accreditation card D- 009361 and the files of the Embassy of India, Dushanbe, so as to restore the said records to reflect the correct position that the Petitioner is the lawful and only wife of Respondent No. 5, and to communicate the decision so taken to the Petitioner.

¶32

(k) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to ensure that, there being no decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5, and unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction holds otherwise, no document, record or communication issued by or on behalf of any Mission or office of the Government of India, including any document issued in continuation of the four Impugned Note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024, shall represent any person other than the Petitioner as the wife or spouse of Respondent No. 5, and to intimate to the Petitioner the steps taken in that

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 07/09/2026 at 14:03:43

¶35

behalf.

¶36

(l) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 to ensure that no benefit, accreditation, entitlement or recognition procured upon the false representation of Ms. Aritra Singha as the spouse of Respondent No. 5 is given effect to in any manner that prejudices the rights of the Petitioner as the lawful and only wife of Respondent No. 5, and that the Petitioner’s entitlements flowing from that status, including her entitlements in respect of maintenance, family pension and other terminal and service benefits, medical and consular facilities and recognition as the next of kin, are not defeated or diluted by reason of the said false representation, unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction holds otherwise, and to communicate to the Petitioner the steps taken in that behalf.”

¶37

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of respondent no. 5, who is serving as Indian Foreign Service officer, Second Secretary/Head of Chancery, Embassy of India, (Dushanbe) since 1994. It is stated that the marriage is subsisting and no decree of divorce has been passed. However, respondent No. 5 issued four impugned note Verbales dated 15.10.2024, 30.10.2024, 01.11.2024 and 11.11.2024, under official seal of Embassy of India to Government of the republic of Tajikistan, representing respondent No. 6 (Aritra Singha) as his "spouse" procuring visa and diplomatic accreditation card for her on false declaration. It is stated that the petitioner had submitted representations regarding serious allegations that were made on 07.05.2026 and 08.05.2026 to the Ministry of External Affairs. On 02.07.2026, a one liner communication was sent to the petitioner, communicating that the matter was under examination, since it has to go to multiple authorities in the Ministry. Therefore, it is understood that respondent nos. 1 to 4 have not yet decided the aforesaid representations, since 08.05.2026 till 02.07.2026.

¶38

This Court notes that today also, the same statement has been made by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, that the representation has

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 07/09/2026 at 14:03:43

¶41

to go to multiple authorities and they will need at least three months’ time to do the needful.

¶42

After hearing learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and in view of the issue involved in the instant petition, this Court finds it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 to 4 to decide the representations filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date, under intimation to the petitioner herein.

¶43

In above terms, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶44

In case of any further grievance, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court by way of a fresh writ petition.

¶45

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶46

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶47

AUGUST 31, 2026/A/VS

¶48

This is a digitally signed order.

¶49

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 07/09/2026 at 14:03:43

Runa Mondal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Runa Mondal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nk Rathod Raja Bhai Bavanji Bhai

Sub Maj Lalit Sharma Vs Union of India through Secretary & Ors.

Nec Corporation India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), Delhi & Ors.

Brijesh Khandelia Vs Govt of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Sandeep Vs Veena Devi & Ors.

Fadhli Bassya Vs Commissioner of Customs

Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Diamond Power Infrastructure Limited Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited