Dismissed¶25

Aiims Operation Theatre Technologists Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Service law – Central Administrative Tribunal

Delhi HC12 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2025/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula, J., W.P.(C) 2025/2026 (decided 12.02.2026) — AIIMS Operation Theatre Technologists Association v. Union of India & Ors. Keywords: maintainability of writ petition; Central Administrative Tribunal jurisdiction; consequential grievance must be filed before Tribunal; L. Chandra Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 261 followed; dismissal with liberty to approach CAT; AIIMS Operation Theatre Technologists; cadre restructuring and pay parity; memorandum dated 10.11.2022; Cadre Review Committee recommendations dated 24.12.2022; PGIMER and JIPMER parity; O.A. No. 2267/2022.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the Petitioner to agitate the grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law. ¶25

Aiims Operation Theatre Technologists Association Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the Petitioner to agitate the grievances before the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, or whether the grievances raised fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (preliminary objection raised by Respondents 2 and 3). +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The preliminary objection as to maintainability has merit: once the Petitioner had initially invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and such jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal, any subsequent or consequential grievance arising therefrom ought to be agitated by filing an appropriate substantive proceeding before the Tribunal itself.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits of the controversy, the petition is dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, while reserving liberty to the Petitioner to agitate the grievances before the Tribunal in accordance with law; pending applications also dismissed.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — Central Administrative Tribunal — maintainability of writ petition. Petitioner association of Operation Theatre Technologists at AIIMS, whose O.A. No. 2267/2022 was disposed of on 22.08.2022 with a direction to consider its claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order, challenged the AIIMS memorandum dated 10.11.2022 as non-adjudicatory and sought a final reasoned decision on cadre restructuring and pay parity, relying on the Internal Cadre Review Committee recommendations dated 24.12.2022 and parity with PGIMER and JIPMER. HELD: once the Petitioner had initially invoked the Tribunal's jurisdiction, any subsequent or consequential grievance arising therefrom must be agitated before the Tribunal by an appropriate substantive proceeding; the preliminary objection as to maintainability was upheld, and without entering into the merits the writ petition was dismissed in view of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors, (1997) 3 SCC 261, with liberty reserved to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal. Pending applications dismissed.

¶1

$~68

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2025/2026 & CM APPLs. 9920-9922/2026 AIIMS OPERATION THEATRE TECHNOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, Mr. Girraj Singh Yadav, Mr. Mudit Bansal and Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocates.

¶3

versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Kautilya Birat, G.P., Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr. Vishwadeep, Advocates for R-1, 2 and 3.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R % 12.02.2026

¶8

The Petitioner had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2267/2022, which was disposed of by order dated 22^nd August, 2022. The Petitioner asserts that the said disposal was based on consent between the parties and that the Tribunal had issued a clear direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s claim and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated time frame.

¶9

In purported compliance with the aforesaid order, a memorandum dated 10^th November, 2022 was issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.¹ The said memorandum, the Petitioner asserts, merely recorded that the proposal had been referred to the Ministry of Health & Family

¶10

1 “AIIMS”

¶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 16/02/2026 at 13:13:56

¶13

Welfare and the Department of Expenditure and was under consideration, without adjudicating upon the Petitioner’s entitlement or assigning any reasons whatsoever.

¶14

Thereafter, the Internal Cadre Review Committee of AIIMS, by its unanimous recommendations dated 24^th December, 2022, examined the cadre structure of Operation Theatre Technologists and recommended restructuring of the cadre, revised nomenclature, enhancement of sanctioned strength, and alignment with the cadre hierarchy prevailing in PGIMER and JIPMER. The Petitioner asserts that even these institutional recommendations were not acted upon.

¶15

The matter continued to remain under consideration throughout the year 2023, resulting in stagnation of pay, denial of career progression, and recurring financial prejudice.

¶16

In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking, inter alia , the following reliefs:

¶17

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the memorandum/speaking order dated 10.11.2022, issued in purported compliance of the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2267 of 2022, does not constitute lawful or effective compliance, being non-adjudicatory in nature; ;

¶18

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to take a final, reasoned and speaking decision, within a time-bound period to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, on the long-pending proposal relating to cadre restructuring and pay parity of Operation Theatre Technologists at AIIMS, New Delhi ,

¶19

(c) Direct the Respondents, while taking such final decision, to consider and give due weight to the unanimous recommendations of the Internal Cadre Review Committee of AIIMS dated 24.12.2022, as well as the principle of parity already extended to similarly placed Operation Theatre Technologists in PGIMER, Chandigarh and JIPMER, Puducherry;”

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 16/02/2026 at 13:13:56

¶22

At the outset, Counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition, contending that the grievances sought to be raised herein fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶23

In the opinion of the Court, the objection raised by counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3, has merit. Once the Petitioner had initially invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and such jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal, any subsequent or consequential grievance arising therefrom ought to be agitated by filing an appropriate substantive proceeding before the Tribunal itself.

¶24

Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the controversy, the present petition is dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors . ,² while reserving liberty in favour of the Petitioner to agitate the grievances before the Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶25

Dismissed along with pending applications.

¶26

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 12, 2026 as

¶28

2 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 16/02/2026 at 13:13:56

Aiims Operation Theatre Technologists Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aiims Operation Theatre Technologists Association v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shannu Baghel Vs Bar Council of India

Maya Gupta & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Rashpal Singh Todd Vs the Bureau of Immigration & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ajay Kumar

M/S Sopan Restaurant Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abdur Rahman Vs Sports Management Board & Ors.

Sh Krishan Vs Minicipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Surya Pratap Singh Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge Hq Delhi and Ors.

Dr. G. Chaudhuri Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University and Anr.

Shri Ritesh Mahajan & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Sakshi Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhijit Banerji & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

R.B. Saxena & Ors. Vs the Chief Secretary & Ors.