Dismissed¶¶18

Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh Chahar and Ors.

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/2970/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 2970/2026, CM APPL. 14343/2026, Delhi High Court, 10.03.2026, Anil Kshetarpal J., Amit Mahajan J.; Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh Chahar; Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 30.01.2025; ACP Scheme; MACP Scheme; Reserved Trained Pool Scheme; temporary service benefits; parity with similarly placed employees; follows Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Pal Singh & Ors., W.P.(C) 6973/2024 (decided 27.05.2024); SLP by Government dismissed by Supreme Court; counsel admitted benefits already granted; no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners does not dispute that similarly situated employees have already been granted the ACP/MACP benefits directed by the Tribunal. ¶¶16

Union of India and Ors. Vs Bhagwan Singh Chahar and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out against the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction (Impugned Order dated 30.01.2025) to extend to the Respondents the same benefits as already granted to similarly placed employees while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes.

¶¶10

Court's answer

Learned counsel representing the Petitioners does not dispute that similarly situated employees have already been granted the ACP/MACP benefits directed by the Tribunal.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Government against the aforesaid judgment (W.P.(C) 6973/2024, Rakesh Pal Singh) has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

¶¶17

Key takeaways

In view of the undisputed parity of benefits and the dismissal of the Government's SLP, no ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out; the Writ Petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.), by order dated 10.03.2026, dismissed W.P.(C) 2970/2026 filed by Union of India and Ors. against Respondents Bhagwan Singh Chahar and Ors. The challenge was to the Central Administrative Tribunal's Impugned Order dated 30.01.2025, which had relied upon the Delhi High Court's judgment in W.P.(C) 6973/2024 (Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Pal Singh & Ors.) and directed the Petitioners to extend to the Respondents the same benefits as already granted to similarly placed employees while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes (including, per para 5.6 of the Tribunal order, benefits of temporary service under the Reserved Trained Pool Scheme). Before this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioners did not dispute that similarly situated employees had already been granted the said benefits, and it was noted that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Government against the Rakesh Pal Singh judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Holding that no ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction was made out, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2970/2026, CM APPL. 14343/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners

¶4

Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Senior Panel Counsel.

¶5

versus

¶6

BHAGWAN SINGH CHAHAR AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R % 10.03.2026

¶10

The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, by way of the Impugned Order dated 30.01.2025, has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) 6973/2024 captioned Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Pal Singh & Ors. and has directed the Petitioners to extend to the Respondents the same benefits as have already been granted to similarly placed employees while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes.

¶11

2. Para 5.6 of the Impugned Order reads as under:

¶12

“It is noticeable that vide record of proceeding dated 15.04.2024, the Hon‟ble High Court in WP (C) No. 6973/2024 (Rakesh Pal Singh) (supra), the learned counsel for the petitioners (UOI) prayed for time to obtain instructions as to whether similarly placed employees have been granted the benefits to their temporary service under the Reserved Trained Pool Scheme while considering their claims under the ACP and MACP Schemes. Thereafter, the decision rendered in Rakesh Pal Singh (supra) have been upheld by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP (c) No. 6973/2024 on 27.05.2024.”

¶13

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner does not dispute

¶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 12/03/2026 at 13:44:48

¶16

that similarly situated employees have already been granted the said benefits.

¶17

It is further noted that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Government against the aforesaid judgment has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

¶18

In view thereof, no ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The present Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶20

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶21

MARCH 10, 2026/LP/ shah

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 12/03/2026 at 13:44:48

Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh Chahar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh Chahar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raj Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Ors.

Gaurav Dutt Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Heeric Vs Rbl Bank & Ors.

Nav Rashtra Party Vs Election Commission of India

Mohd. Suleman Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Braham Construction Co. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Resident Welfare Association Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi and Anr.

Vaibhav Chauhan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ankur Sarkar and Ors. Vs Nikhil Kumar, Ias, Chief Secretary (Health)

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar

Tejinder Pal Singh Bhinder Vs Chief Controller of Accounts & Ors.

Dr. Kumud Bharti Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Naresh Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.