Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar Rajput — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Vs Suresh Kumar Rajput — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with no further orders: the Court held that any recoveries from the respondent would be completely inequitable and unjust; the petitioners, through their CGSC, undertook to act in accordance with the Tribunal's liberty and afford the respondent an opportunity before taking any action on his entitlements; the respondent's right in law remains reserved should he continue to be aggrieved; all pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners could effect recoveries from the respondent of allowances paid pursuant to the decision of the Principal Secretary taken on 4 April 2022. +1 more

Court's answer

The respondent is clearly not at fault in the payments made to him, which were taken in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary of the petitioners, who is the highest hierarchical executive authority.

Ratio / Principle

As the decision to pay the respondent was in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary, any recoveries from the respondent at this stage would be completely inequitable and unjust; the Court so holds, placing itself within the framework of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, para 18.

Key takeaways

On the aspect of revisiting the respondent's entitlements, in view of the liberty already granted by the Tribunal and the petitioners' undertaking (through their CGSC) to act in accordance with that liberty and afford the respondent an opportunity before taking any action on his entitlement, no further orders were required on this aspect.ratio¶25
Should the respondent continue to be aggrieved by any decision taken in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal, his right in law shall remain reserved.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.) disposed of W.P.(C) 2997/2026, which challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 11 November 2025 in OA 2183/2024 (and OA 804/2025) concerning discontinuation of certain allowances paid to the respondent pursuant to the Principal Secretary's decision of 4 April 2022 and consequential recoveries effected from him. Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, para 18 (including its residual equity clause), the Court held that, as the payments were made in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary — the highest hierarchical executive authority — and the respondent was not at fault, any recoveries at this stage would be completely inequitable and unjust. On revisiting the respondent's entitlements, the petitioners undertook, through their CGSC, to act in accordance with the Tribunal's liberty by affording the respondent an opportunity before any action; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of, the respondent's rights reserved, and all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

$~54

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 2997/2026, CM APPL. 14470/2026, CM APPL. 14471/2026, CM APPL. 21716/2026, CM APPL. 21717/2026, CM APPL. 21718/2026, CM APPL. 21719/2026 & CM APPL. 21720/2026

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, ASC, Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Mr Sachin Garg and Ms Vishruti Pandey, Advs.

versus

SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal and Mr. Dhurendra Singh, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

ORDER (ORAL) % 06.04.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

W.P.(C) 2997/2026 & CM APPL. 21716/2026

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 11 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2183/2024 and OA 804/2025. However, the challenge is essentially to the order passed in OA 2183/2024.

2. OA 2183/2024 was directed against the action of the petitioners in discontinuing payment of certain allowances which were being paid to the respondent consequent to the decision of the Principal Secretary

Page 1 of 3

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2997/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 9.04.2026 10:41:01

of the petitioners taken on 4 April 2022.

3. Consequent thereon, the petitioners also proceeded to effect recoveries from the respondent.

4. The Tribunal has held that recoveries could not be made and, insofar as the decision to revisit the respondent’s entitlements are concerned, the petitioners have been given an opportunity to issue a notice to the respondent, afford him a chance to respond thereto and thereafter reconsider the decision.

5. So far as the aspect of recovery is concerned, the respondent is clearly not at fault in the payments which were made to him which were taken in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary of the petitioner who is the highest hierarchical executive authority.

6. The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih¹ , in para 18, while enumerating the instances in which recovery would not be permissible, has also allowed the Court to set aside recoveries in deserving instances other than those specifically enumerated in the said paragraph.

7. We are clear that, as the decision to pay the respondent was in accordance with the decision of the Principal Secretary, any recoveries from the respondent at this stage would be completely inequitable and unjust.

1 ( 2015 ) 4 SCC 334

Page 2 of 3

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2997/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 9.04.2026 10:41:01

8. We hold accordingly.

9. Insofar as the aspect of revisiting the respondent’s entitlements are concerned, in view of the liberty already granted by the Tribunal, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned CGSC for the petitioners submits that his client would act in accordance with the said liberty and afford an opportunity to the respondent before taking any action on the respondent’s entitlement.

10. In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of.

11. Needless to say, should the respondent continue to be aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondent in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal, the right of the respondent in law shall remain reserved.

12. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

APRIL 6, 2026/ dsn

Page 3 of 3

Signature Not VerifiedW.P.(C) 2997/2026 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 9.04.2026 10:41:01