Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Yougesh Kumar Gulati… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Yougesh Kumar Gulati… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be accorded the benefit of the 3rd MACP despite not having been applicants/parties in O.A. No. 1288/2014 (Manju Vashistha), and whether the Tribunal's order restoring that benefit warranted interference by this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Learned counsel representing the petitioners did not dispute the positions of law relied on by the Tribunal, and, despite a sincere attempt, failed to point out any cogent distinguishing factor between the case of Manju Vashistha and Ors. (supra) and the present case to justify withholding the benefit of the 3rd MACP from the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

Denial of the benefit of the 3rd MACP to the respondents on the sole ground of their not being applicants in O.A. No. 1288/2014 shows non-application of mind, an observation of the learned Tribunal which this Court endorsed as rightly made.

Key takeaways

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal restoring the 3rd MACP benefit to the respondents.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.) dismissed W.P.(C) 16762/2025 filed under Article 226 by the Commissioner of Police & Ors. challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 23.05.2025 in O.A. No. 3522/2017, by which the Tribunal had allowed the respondents' (Yougesh Kumar Gulati & Ors.) Original Application, set aside the order dated 13.06.2017 withdrawing their 3rd MACP benefit — withdrawn solely because the respondents were not parties in O.A. No. 1288/2014 (Manju Vashishta/Vashistha) — and directed restoration of the benefits. The Tribunal had relied on the judgment dated 23.05.2016 in OA No. 1288/2014 (upheld by the Supreme Court on 17.08.2021 in SLP(C) No. 31921/2018) and on Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Darpan Sharma, 2024:DHC:9059-DB, for the position that identically/similarly situated candidates cannot be accorded different treatment. Petitioners' counsel did not dispute these positions and could point to no cogent distinguishing factor. The Court held that denying the benefit on the sole ground of non-applicant status in the earlier O.A. showed non-application of mind, found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, dismissed the petition, and disposed of the pending applications.

$~72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 16762/2025, CM APPL. 68791/2025, CM APPL. 68792/2025 & CM APPL. 68793/2025

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC and Mr. Arvind Singh Rawat, ASI.

versus

YOUGESH KUMAR GULATI & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

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

O R D E R % 12.01.2026

By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 23.05.2025 (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3522/2017.

By the impugned order, the learned CAT has allowed the Original Application (‘ O.A. ’) filed by the Respondents and set aside the order dated 13.06.2017, whereby the benefit of the 3^rd MACP granted to the respondents was withdrawn on the ground that the respondents were not parties in O.A. No. 1288/2014 titled Manju Vashishta and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors . Consequently, by the impugned order it was directed that the benefits be restored to the respondents.

Reliance was placed by the learned Tribunal on the judgment

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 15/01/2026 at 13:29:50

dated 23.05.2016 in OA No. 1288/2014 titled Manju Vashistha and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors . , which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a detailed order passed on 17.08.2021 in Special Leave Petition (C.) No.31921/2018. The learned Tribunal also placed reliance on the judgment in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Darpan Sharma : 2024:DHC:9059-DB , where this Court had observed that once an identically situated candidate was granted a relief by the High Court, other similarly situated candidates could not be accorded different treatments by the Courts.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid positions of law. Although he made a sincere attempt, however, he has failed to point any cogent distinguishing factor between the case of Manju Vashistha and Ors. ( supra ) and the present case to convince this Court that the respondents ought not to be accorded the benefit of 3^rd MACP. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the benefit being denied to the respondents on the sole ground of them not being applicants in O.A. No. 1288/2014 shows non-application of mind.

In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

JANUARY 12, 2026/ “SK”

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 15/01/2026 at 13:29:50