Disposed¶20

Union of India and Anr. v. Mukesh Meena

Delhi HC7 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8891/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union of India v. Mukesh Meena; W.P.(C) 8891/2026; High Court of Delhi; C. Hari Shankar & Vinod Kumar JJ.; challenge to CAT judgment dated 6 November 2025 in OA 850/2024; ad-hoc promotion to Joint Commissioner w.e.f. 06.07.2021; sealed cover DPC recommendation; consequential benefits; respondent to seek modification before Tribunal; writ petition disposed of as not surviving; liberty reserved to approach High Court on modification application decision.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; writ petition disposed of as not surviving, with liberty reserved to either party to approach the Court if aggrieved by the decision on the Tribunal modification application. ¶20

Union of India and Anr. Vs Mukesh Meena — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition survives for consideration in light of the respondent's counsel's submission that, owing to post-judgment developments, he would move the Tribunal for modification of its judgment and was not presently insisting on compliance with the Tribunal's order.

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the respondent's counsel's submission that he would seek modification of the Tribunal's judgment and was not presently insisting on compliance, the writ petition does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to either party to approach this Court in case they are aggrieved by the decision taken on the modification application, as and when moved before the Tribunal.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar, JJ.) disposed of W.P.(C) 8891/2026 filed by the Union of India against the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment dated 6 November 2025 in OA 850/2024, which had allowed the applicant's O.A. with directions to grant ad-hoc promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 06.07.2021 after opening the sealed cover of the DPC recommendation, with consequential benefits including salary and allowances, compliance within three months, and disposal of pending MAs. At the outset, the respondent's counsel submitted that, in view of post-judgment developments, he would move the Tribunal for modification of the judgment and was not presently insisting on compliance. Holding that the writ petition therefore did not survive for consideration, the Court disposed of it, reserving liberty to either party to approach the Court if aggrieved by the decision on the modification application as and when moved.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8891/2026 & CM APPL. 41607/2026, CM APPL. 41608/2026

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya CGSC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUKESH MEENA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohtany, Adv.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶8

¶9

ORDER (ORAL) 07.07.2026

¶10

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶11

1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 6 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ in OA 850/2024, whereby the following directions have been issued in para 34:

¶12

“34. In view of forgoing analysis, the present O.A. has merit and is deserved to be allowed. As a result thereof, the O.A. is allowed with following directions:

¶13

(i) The Respondents are directed to consider to grant ad-hoc promotion to the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 06.07.2021 after opening the sealed cover of the DPC recommendation and further to

¶14

1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8891/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

accord all consequential benefits to the Applicant, as admissible in law, including salary and allowances of the promoted post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 06.07.2021;

¶17

(ii) The above mentioned directions should be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order;

¶18

(iii) All pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.”

¶19

2. At the outset, Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohtany, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that, in view of developments which have taken place after the passing of the judgment, he would be moving the Tribunal for a modification of the judgment and is not, therefore, presently insisting on compliance with the order of the Tribunal.

¶20

3. In that view of the matter, reserving liberty with either party to approach this Court in case they are aggrieved by the decision taken on modification application, as and when moved, this writ petition does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶22

VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶23

JULY 7, 2026 dsn

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8891/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 8.07.2026 17:57:52

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Union of India and Anr. v. Mukesh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Mukesh Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshitij Panwar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Prince Pal & Anr. Vs State Bank of India

Rajappa S Lamani Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurbachan Kaur Suri Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Varuns Associates Vs Central Public Works Department

Happy Electricals Vs Central Public Works Department

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation Vs Additional Commissioner & Anr.

Raj Kumar Gupta Prop Rajasthan Steel Corporation Vs Additional Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax, & Anr.

Siddharth Yadav Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) & Anr.

Manzoor Ali and Ors. Vs M/S Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj and Ors.

Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. Vs G P Capt. Jagadish Chandra Sharma (Retd.) & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.