UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vs G K SOTI

Judgment text excerpt

$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 9747/2025 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailendra Tiwari, Adv. versus G K SOTI .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 40769/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 40770/2025 (Re-filing) 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 35 days in re-filing the writ petition is condoned. 3. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9747/2025 & CM APPL. 40768/2025 4. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to be as “Tribunal”) in OA No. 1054/2020, titled G.K. Soti v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein with the following direction: “.6. We have no doubt that Clause (i) of the said RBE Circular No.100/2012 would be attracted in the present facts. Accordingly, the respondents are Signature Not Verified Signed W.P.(C) 9747/2025 Page 1 of 3 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:16.07.2025 17:41:50 directed to place the case of the applicant before the Screening Committee to consider for extension of the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme. If he is found fit, he shall be extended the same along with all the consequential benefits within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the case of the respondent fell in Clause (i) of the RBE Circular No. 100/2012. He submits that the learned Tribunal fail