Dismissed¶23

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC25 May 2026W.P.(C)/7527/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 7527/2026 & CM APPL. 36445/2026; Sanjeev Narula, J.; 25.05.2026; maintainability objection; alternative remedy; Central Administrative Tribunal; Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) notified authority under Section 14, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261; writ jurisdiction; withdrawal with liberty; no comment on merits; rights and contentions left open; Circular dated 12.03.2026; disengagement/discontinuation; non-technical and unskilled manpower; certiorari and mandamus reliefs; dismissed with pending application.

What did the court decide?

Petition withdrawn with leave and liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal in accordance with law; no merits adjudicated; all rights and contentions left open. ¶23

Sunil Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7527/2026 & CM APPL. 36445/2026

¶4

SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth, Standing Counsel for ESIC with Ms. Himanshi Girdhar, Mr. Deepanshu Grover, Advocates for R-2 to 6.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 25.05.2026

¶11

1. This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

¶12

“1. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing Circular dated 12.03.2026 and stay operation of disengagement and allow petitioner to continue till disposal.

¶13

2. Declare discontinuation based on the said circular, illegal; and respondents action replacing the applicants by engaging the Non-Technical and unskilled manpower as illegal, biased, perverse, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice.

¶14

3. Iissue a writ of Mandamus directing continuation of Petitioners till lawful recruitment;

¶15

4. Allowing the Writ with consequential benefits and costs any other fit and proper relief may also be granted

¶16

5. Pass any other order deemed fit.”

¶17

At the outset, counsel for the Respondents object to the maintainability of the present petitions on the ground that the Employees State Insurance Corporation is a notified authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the dispute raised herein falls within

¶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 29/05/2026 at 12:09:41

¶20

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 Petitioners, having an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3. 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.

¶21

Leave and liberty as prayed for are granted.

¶22

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

¶23

Dismissed along with pending application.

¶24

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶25

MAY 25, 2026/ab

¶26

1 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 29/05/2026 at 12:09:41

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Bhai Parmanand Vidya Mandir Vs Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi

Ravindra Public School Vs Director of Education and Anr.

Apeejay School, Saket (for 19-20) Vs Directorate of Education

Seetendra Kumar Sinha Vs Union of India

Raj Bala Vs UOI & Ors.

Graphisad Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Rpfas Technologies Private Limited Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vikram Choudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr.Ram Naresh Vs V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary School through Its Manager , Management Committee & Ors.

Jitin Garg Vs G.N.C.T of Delhi & Ors.

Mithilesh Tiwari Vs G. N. C. T. of Delhi & Ors.

Ms. Aarti Mathur & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Shiksha Jain Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Satlesh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.