GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. vs RAM NIWAS

Judgment text excerpt

$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5701/2026, CAV 185/2026, CM APPLs. 28007/2026 & 28008/2026 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv. with Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. versus RAM NIWAS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Asish Nischal and Mr. Arun Nischal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 27.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition is yet another instance which makes us wonder whether, at the time when the decision in L. Chandra Kumar1 was passed by seven Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court, it was ever imagined that orders such as the one under challenge in the present petition would also burden the docket of High Courts under Article 226. 2. The impugned order, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal2 in CP/625/2025, reads thus: 1 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 2 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 5701/2026 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR Signing Date:28.04.2026 18:18:11 “Learned counsel for the respondents, on specific instructions from Mr. Rajbir Yadav, Dy. Director and departmental representative, who is present, submits that the order has been passed based on the OM dated 09.08.1999. It is, however, noted that the said OM, though referred to in the impugned order dated 25.02.2026, was neither brought to the notice of this Tribunal at the time of hearing of the OA nor during the review application. Let learned counsel for the respondents obtain appropriate instructions. Re-notify on 20.04.2026. Mr. Rajbir Yadav, Dy. Director and departmental representative, shall remain present on the next date of hearing.” 3. Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit