Disposed¶18

Abhey Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC8 May 2026W.P.(C)/6285/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abhey Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) 6285/2026; CM APPL. 30896/2026; Delhi High Court; order dated 08.05.2026; writ petition closed; liberty to approach Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi; Rule 63(1)(ii) Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972; constitutionality/unconstitutionality; ultra vires; excess recovery; refund of INR 31,29,052/-; 18% interest; deposit dated 19.03.2025; Central Government Group A officer; writ petition vs CAT forum/jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted on merits; writ petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Exemption application CM APPL. 30896/2026 allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of. ¶18

Abhey Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether Rule 63(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India to the extent it permits recovery of amounts not incurred by the Government or authorises recovery resulting in unjust enrichment (as prayed by the petitioner). +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The prayers sought in the writ petition need to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT'), not by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.

¶18

Key takeaways

The writ petition is closed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.ratio¶18
CM APPL. 30896/2026 (for exemption) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and stands disposed of.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.), order dated 08.05.2026 in W.P.(C) 6285/2026 (Abhey Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.): A former Central Government Group A officer sought (i) declaration that Rule 63(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India to the extent it permits recovery of amounts not incurred by the Government or results in unjust enrichment, and (ii) refund of an excess recovery of INR 31,29,052/- with 18% interest from the deposit date of 19.03.2025. The Court held that these prayers fall to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT') and accordingly closed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Exemption application CM APPL. 30896/2026 was allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of.

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6285/2026 & CM APPL. 30896/2026 ABHEY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Zafar Khurshid, Mr. Kuldeep Kasana and Mr. Ahmad Kamaal, Advs.

¶3

versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harsh Choudhary, CGSC and Mr. Rajat Mohan Dwivedi, GP for Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶6

O R D E R % 08.05.2026 CM APPL. 30896/2026 (for exemption)

¶7

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶8

The application stands disposed of.

¶9

W.P.(C) 6285/2026

¶10

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶11

“i. Declare Rule 63(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India, to the extent it permits recovery of amounts not incurred by the Government or authorises recovery resulting in unjust enrichment;

¶12

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order, or direction, to declare the excess recovery initiated by the Respondents from the Petitioner illegal and unsustainable in law;

¶13

iii. Direct the Respondents to refund the excess amount of INR 31,29,052/- illegally recovered from the Petitioner;

¶14

iv. Direct the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the excess amount mentioned in prayer clause (ii), starting from the date of deposit, i.e., 19.03.2025;

¶15

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 18/05/2026 at 12:36:25

¶16

v. Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed just, fit, and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶17

We note this petition is filed by a person who was the employee of the Central Government having worked as a Group A Officer.

¶18

The prayer as sought by the petitioner in this petition need be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal, [‘CAT’], therefore, we close this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

¶19

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶20

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶21

MAY 08, 2026/ msh

¶22

Abhey Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhey Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navendu Agrawal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rwa Block C4A Janakpuri Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Aerotech Fms Pvt. Ltd. (through Director Gurbir Singh Nagi) Vs Cbic & Ors.

Vandana Bansal Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi & Ors.

Kamant Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Faculty of Law, University of Delhi through Its Dean & Anr.

Staff Selection Commission Vs Hari Mohan Sharma

Yatish Kumar Vs I.I.T.

Davinder Singh Sapra Vs Decent Securities Pvt. Ltd.

National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. Vs Holy Child Bed College & Anr.

Jagdish Prasad Mandawra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smc Global Securities Ltd. Vs Sanjay Malik & Anr.

New India Timber Store Vs Hsk Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Shri Narinder Kumar Trading as M/S Kundan Trading Company (Prop Firm). Vs Kyoto Tool Co., Ltd. & Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)