Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC12 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3143/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition; suspension order F.No. 14-05/2025-Vig dated 29.12.2025; AIIMS as notified authority under Section 14, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 — efficacious alternative remedy before Central Administrative Tribunal; withdrawal with liberty to approach Tribunal; no comment on merits; rights and contentions left open; disposed of with pending applications; Sanjeev Narula, J.; 12.03.2026; W.P.(C) 3143/2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn; leave and liberty granted to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law; no adjudication on merits, all rights and contentions left open. ¶¶24

Naresh Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition permitted to be withdrawn; leave and liberty granted to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law; no adjudication on merits, all rights and contentions left open.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, given that AIIMS is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶¶17

Court's answer

Leave and liberty granted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law, resolving the maintainability objection without adjudication.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Court has not commented on the merits of the case; all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), W.P.(C) 3143/2026, CM APPL. 15111-15112/2026, decided 12.03.2026: Writ petition by Naresh Kumar Yadav sought setting aside of suspension order F.No. 14-05/2025-Vig dated 29.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, reinstatement with consequential benefits, or alternatively time-bound conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, and a declaration that repeated suspension on the same/similar grounds after joining duties pursuant to Tribunal proceedings was arbitrary, mala fide and a colourable exercise of power. Respondents objected to maintainability on the ground that AIIMS is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and that, per L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought leave to withdraw; the Court granted leave and liberty to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law, expressly refrained from commenting on the merits, left all rights and contentions open, and disposed of the petition along with pending applications.

¶1

$~76

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3143/2026, CM APPL. 15111-15112/2026

¶4

NARESH KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Towseef Ahmad Dar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. V.S.R. Krishna and Mr. V. Shashank Kumar, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Rahul Sambher, SPC for R-1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 12.03.2026

¶11

This writ petition seeks the following relief:

¶12

“a) Set-aside, order or direction of suspension order F.No. 14-05/2025-Vig dated 29.12.2025 passed by the respondent No 2;

¶13

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service and discharge his duties, with all consequential benefits;

¶14

c) In the alternative, direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, if any, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, without continuing the petitioner under suspension;

¶15

d) Declare that the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under repeated suspension on the same /similar grounds, after having permitted him to join duties pursuant to the Tribunal proceedings, is arbitrary, mala fide and a colourable exercise of power;

¶16

e) Pass an appropriate interim order staying the operation and effect of the impugned suspension order during the pendency of the present writ petition;”

¶17

At the outset, counsel for the Respondents object to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the All India

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 13/03/2026 at 13:46:21

¶20

Institute of Medical Sciences (“ AIIMS ”) is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the dispute raised herein falls within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ,¹ the Petitioner, having an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶21

In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.

¶22

Leave and liberty as prayed for, are granted.

¶23

The Court has not commented on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶24

Disposed of along with any pending applications.

¶25

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶26

MARCH 12, 2026 nk

¶27

1 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 13/03/2026 at 13:46:21

Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pardeep Kumar Gilani Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Prem Vohra Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bls E Services Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shree Renuka Sugars Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

John Robert Roughton III through Poa Holder Victoria Roughton Vs Union of India and Ors.

Meena Bazaar through Proprietor Vs Radhey Shyam Chaturvedi

Mohd Hadis Lari Vs Jamia Millia Islamia University & Ors.

Satveer Singh and Anr. Vs Staff Selection Commisiion

Jai Parkash Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kamla Devi Jain Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Dharmender Kumar & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ilmas Naqvi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashish Vs Indian Council of Medical Research & Anr.

Vasantha Kumari Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University