AMIT SHARMA AND ANR. vs UOI AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 20.12.2025 Pronounced on: 06.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 7344/2009 AMIT SHARMA AND ANR. ….Petitioners Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik, Advs. versus UOI AND ORS. .…Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Ms. Ruchita Srivastava and Ms. Neha, Advs. + W.P.(C) 481/2019 U.K. SHARMA …..Petitioner Through: Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ….Respondents Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Ashutosh Pathak, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN JUDGMENT MADHU JAIN, J. 1. W.P.(C) 7344/2009 has been filed challenging the Order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 7344/2009 & W.P.(C) 481/2019 Page 1 of 28 NEGI Signing Date:06.02.2026 17:19:15 Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1815/2007, titled Amit Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioners herein, with the following observations: “17. Perusal of the records shows that applicant no.2 was even issued warning on 05.12.2005 for unauthorizedly exchanging the quarter with Shri S.P. Singh and after examining the case at length it was decided it is not permissible to regularize the quarter in these circumstances. 18. From above it is clear that the case was not only rejected on one ground but on two grounds, therefore, reliance placed by applicant on letter dated 24.10.2005 alone cannot advance applicant's case in these circumstances. 19. Counsel for the applicant relied on few letters to show that telephone was