Yuvranjan Sachdev v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC20 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2404/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grade pay anomaly; pay band parity with counterparts in different departments and ministries; condonation of delay of 467 days; denial of proper pay as recurring monthly cause of action; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; O.A. No. 4549/2024; M.A. No. 4337/2024; writ of Certiorari; remand to Tribunal to decide O.A. on merits; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628; Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 2404/2026; decision dated 20.02.2026; appearance before Tribunal on 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Tribunal order set aside; matter remitted to the learned Tribunal to consider the merits of the case; parties through their counsels directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 10.03.2026. ¶¶22

Yuvranjan Sachdev Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous application for condonation of delay of 467 days (instead of deciding the O.A. on merits) should be set aside, in view of the dispute regarding the anomaly in the petitioner's grade pay relative to counterparts in other departments and ministries.

¶¶19

Court's answer

Denial of proper pay is a recurring cause of action, arising each month as and when the salary becomes due; consequently, the petitioner was not even required to file an application for condonation of delay.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

On a perusal of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal had only decided the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay and had refused to decide the O.A. on merits.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Keeping in view the nature of the dispute regarding the anomaly in the grade pay of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal should have decided the O.A. on merits.ratio¶¶19
The impugned order is set aside, remitting the matter back to the learned Tribunal for considering the merits of the present case.ratio¶¶20
The learned Tribunal shall decide the case uninfluenced by any observations made in this Court's order or in the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.), order dated 20.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 2404/2026, disposed of a writ petition seeking Certiorari against the order dated 11.12.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in M.A. No. 4337/2024 filed in O.A. No. 4549/2024, whereby the petitioner's application for condonation of a 467-day delay in filing the O.A. was dismissed. The petitioner, aggrieved at being placed in a lower Grade Pay than counterparts from different departments and ministries in the same pay band, had relied on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628. The Court held that denial of proper pay is a recurring cause of action arising each month as salary falls due — the petitioner was not even required to seek condonation — and observed that the Tribunal had refused to decide the O.A. on merits. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide the O.A. on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made herein or in the impugned order, and directed appearance of the parties through counsels on 10.03.2026.

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2404/2026 & CM APPL. 11746/2026 YUVRANJAN SACHDEV .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Shruti Munjal, Mr. Chetan Singh & Ms. Trisha Dhara, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Pathak, (SPC) along with Sanjay Pal (GP) Ms. Sunanda Shukla, SPC.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.02.2026

¶11

The present petition has been field seeking issuance of Writ in nature of Certiorari to quash Order dated 11.12.2025, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (hereinafter ‘ Tribunal ’) in M.A No. 4337/2024 filed in O.A. No. 4549/2024, whereby miscellaneous applications filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 467 days in filing the O.A. was dismissed.

¶12

In substance, the Petitioner prays for removal of anomaly due to which he was placed in a lower Grade Pay as opposed to his counterparts from different departments and different ministries who were placed at a higher Pay Grade in the same pay band.

¶13

Denial of proper pay becomes a recurring cause of action, which arises each month as and when the salary becomes due. In fact, the Petitioner was not even required to file application for condonation of delay, in the present case.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 24/02/2026 at 12:35:55

¶16

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner relies upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India And Others : (1995) 5 SCC 628 .

¶17

Learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that even on merits the Petitioner does not have a case because he cannot claim parity with employees of a sister organisation.

¶18

This Court has considered the submissions. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the learned Tribunal has only decided miscellaneous application for condonation of delay and has refused to decide O.A. on merits.

¶19

Keeping in view the nature of dispute arising in the present case, regarding the anomaly in the grade pay of the Petitioner, the learned Tribunal should have decided the O.A. on merits.

¶20

Hence, the impugned order is set aside, while remitting the matter back to the learned Tribunal, for considering the merits of the present case.

¶21

Needless to observe, the learned Tribunal shall decide the case uninfluenced by any observations made herein or in the impugned order.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, in the aforementioned terms.

¶23

The parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 10.03.2026.

¶24

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶25

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 20, 2026/ “SK”

¶27

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 24/02/2026 at 12:35:55

Yuvranjan Sachdev v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvranjan Sachdev 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

Jagdish Chander Chug Vs Sub Registrar Office II B

Gauri Kansal Minor through Father Anil Kansal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Smt. Mamta Bajaj Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Banarsi Devi Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aksheev Agarwal & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bankar Hukum Natha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Bhoomi Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ashish Garg Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Arun Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S Harish Chandra (India) Ltd.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Firdose Asia S & Ors.

Deepak Builders and Engineers Limited Vs M/S Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.

Suresh Yadav Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes Cbdt through Its Chairman Department of Revenue & Anr.

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Hira Lal