Shri Ritesh Mahajan & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Shri Ritesh Mahajan & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: Respondent No. 2 directed to treat the petition as a representation and decide it with other similarly placed representations by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks; impugned recovery orders not to be given effect till final decision (Respondent No. 2's statement); liberty reserved to petitioner if decision adverse; next date of hearing cancelled.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Memorandum dated 9th January, 2026 requiring Petitioner No. 1 to deposit INR 3,05,579/- with Respondent No. 2, failing recovery from his salary in instalments, is valid. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of Respondent No. 2's statement that the issue is under reconsideration and the representations shall be examined collectively, the Court deemed it unnecessary to keep the petition pending and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to treat it as a representation and to examine and decide it, along with the other similarly placed representations, by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law in the event the decision on his representation is adverse.ratio¶4
The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions; the substantive challenges to the recovery memorandum and the FMA restriction were left undecided.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J.), order dated 11.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 1673/2026 & CM APPL. 8089/2026 - Petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging (i) Memorandum dated 9th January, 2026 directing Petitioner No. 1 to deposit INR 3,05,579/- with the Finance & Accounts Department of Respondent No. 2 (GGSIPU), failing which recovery from salary in instalments, and (ii) Memorandum dated 25th March, 2025 restricting Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) to only one spouse where both spouses are employed with the University, with retrospective application resulting in recovery proceedings. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 stated that seventeen other similarly placed employees had made representations, which would be examined collectively, and that the impugned recovery orders would not be given effect to till final decision. Holding the matter unfit for adjudication at that stage, the Court disposed of the petition, directing Respondent No. 2 to treat it as a representation and decide it with the other representations by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue legal remedies if the decision is adverse; the Court expressly did not express any opinion on merits. No precedent cited; no substantive law laid down.

$~12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 1673/2026 & CM APPL. 8089/2026

SHRI RITESH MAHAJAN & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Puneet Bajaj, Advocate.

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Vishruti Pandey and Mr. Sachin Garg, Advocates for R-1. Mrs. Anita Sahani, Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Satwik Mitra, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, ASC with Ms. Shweta and Mr. Shiv Chopra, Advocates for R-2/ GGSIPU.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 11.02.2026

This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns Memorandum dated 9^th January, 2026, whereby Petitioner No. 1 has been directed to deposit a sum of INR 3,05,579/- with the Finance & Accounts Department of Respondent No. 2, failing which the said amount is to be recovered from his salary in instalments. The petitioners also assail Memorandum dated 25^th March, 2025, to the extent it restricts the grant of Fixed Medical Allowance (FMA) to only one spouse where both husband and wife are employed with the University, and its consequential

This is a digitally signed order.

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 13/02/2026 at 11:09:15

retrospective application resulting in recovery proceedings.

Ms. Anita Sahani, counsel for Respondent No. 2, on instructions, submits that apart from the petitioner, seventeen other similarly placed employees have submitted representations and it is likely that further such representations may also be received. She states that in view of the aforesaid, Respondent No. 2 has decided to examine all such representations collectively and, till a final decision is taken thereon, the impugned recovery orders shall not be given effect to.

In view of the statement made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that the issue is under reconsideration and that the representations shall be examined, this Court does not deem it necessary to keep the present petition pending. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to treat the writ petition as a representation and to examine and decide the same along with the other similarly placed representations by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from today.

In the event the decision is adverse to the petitioner, liberty is reserved to him to avail remedies in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.

The next date of hearing stands cancelled.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

FEBRUARY 11, 2026 hc

This is a digitally signed order.

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 13/02/2026 at 11:09:15