Disposed

Pratima Kumari Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3336/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former Judicial Member of CAT appointed through a selection process governed by the old Act, claimed denial of five-year tenure and benefits extended to similarly placed Members. Court found substantial issues but directed respondents to decide her pending representation within four weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2025 by reasoned order within four weeks.

Pratima Kumari Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3336/2026 & CM APPL. 16119/2026 PRATIMA KUMARI GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Advocates with Petitioner (in-Person).

¶4

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr. Aryan Dhaka and Ms. Sunidhi Tyagi, Advocates.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 16.03.2026

¶9

The Petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) pursuant to the recommendations of a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under the aegis of the Supreme Court. She joined pursuant to an offer of appointment dated 16^th August, 2021 and demitted office on 16^th August, 2025 upon completion of a tenure of four years, as stipulated under the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.

¶10

The grievance of the Petitioner is that her selection process emanated from an advertisement dated 1^st February, 2018, which, in terms of subsequent developments including a corrigendum dated 9^th April, 2019, stood governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter “the old Act”) read with the A.T. (Procedure for Appointment of Members) Rules, 2011. Under the said regime, Members are entitled to a tenure of five years along with attendant service benefits.

¶11

It is the Petitioner’s case that the Supreme Court, in W.P.(C) No. 640/2017 and connected matters, had issued interim directions mandating

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 19/03/2026 at 13:46:02

¶14

that appointments pursuant to the concerned selection process would be governed by the old Act and the Rules of 2011. These directions were reiterated from time to time. It is further pointed out that the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 and the subsequent 2020 Rules have been struck down. Ultimately, by judgment dated 19^th November, 2025 in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr . , W.P.(C) No. 1018/2021, Supreme Court clarified that where the selection process had concluded prior to the coming into force of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, appointments would continue to be governed by the parent statutes and not by the 2021 Act.

¶15

The Petitioner submits that she is identically situated to other Judicial Members selected through the same process, including Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi and Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne. It is contended that while similarly placed appointees have been extended the benefit of the old Act, the Petitioner has been denied such treatment, resulting in discrimination. It is also pointed out that in the case of Members of other Tribunals, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), similar benefits have been extended pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶16

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 23^rd December, 2025 seeking, inter alia , reinstatement/rejoining as Judicial Member, CAT with all consequential benefits or, in the alternative, extension of tenure so as to enable completion of the full five-year term in terms of the old Act.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 19/03/2026 at 13:46:02

¶19

Having considered the submissions and the material placed on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that the Petitioner has raised substantial issues warranting consideration, particularly in light of the judgment dated 19^th November, 2025 and the treatment extended to similarly placed Members. However, since the Petitioner’s representation dated 23^rd December, 2025 is stated to be pending consideration with the Respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Respondents to take a considered decision thereon in the first instance.

¶20

The correspondence on record indicates that the CAT has sought clarification from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in this regard, and pointed that in certain comparable cases, consequential benefits have been extended in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶21

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents to consider and decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 23^rd December, 2025, treating the present writ petition also as part of the said representation, and to pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

It is made clear that in the event the Petitioner remains aggrieved by the decision so taken, it shall be open to her to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶25

MARCH 16, 2026 as

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 19/03/2026 at 13:46:02

Pratima Kumari Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Kumari Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antique Marbonite Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board and Ors.

Vinay Sehrawat & Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ayush Thakur Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Chahat Choudhary Vs National Medical Commission and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Aps Hydro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Tuheena Mukherjee Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pinki and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Kailash Chand Gupta Vs Punjab National Bank

Om Prakash and Anr. Vs Tyhe Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Agi Greenpac Limited Vs Competition Commission of India

Vivek Utpal Vs Union of India & Ors.