UNION OF INDIA AND ORS vs GYAN DUTT SHARMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5795/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Niyati Sharma, SPC. versus GYAN DUTT SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K Trivedi and Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. Sunil Bansal, Advocates with respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 30.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 1 July 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 1089/2022, which sought antedating of the seniority of the respondent as Store Keeping Staff in the Army Ordinance Store. 2. Before the Tribunal, the respondent contended that the case was fully covered by the judgment dated 31 May 2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA 1987/20192, which was never challenged and was also implemented. 1 “Tribunal” hereafter 2 Rama Nand Prabhakar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANUBHAV W.P.(C) 5795/2026 Page 1 of 2 TRIPATHI Signing Date:06.05.2026 15:10:30 3. The Tribunal has merely followed this judgment. 4. Ms. Niyati Sharma, who appears for the petitioners was directed by the Court to inform the Court as to whether the said judgment was challenged. Today, she appears and candidly acknowledges that the judgment was never challenged. 5. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the view adopted by the Tribunal. Similarly situated persons have to be treated similarly in order to conform with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The Supreme Court has also held in State of Karnataka and Others v. C. Lalitha3, State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava4 and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India and Ors.5 that the benefit of a judgment should e