CHANDRANSH PANDEY vs UOI & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16.12.2025 Pronounced on:16.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 5341/2008 CHANDRANSH PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Nidhi Pandey, Advs. Versus UOI AND ORS …..Respondents Through: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, SPC Mr. Manjeet Singh Reen, Adv. for R-5 & R-6 (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN JUDGMENT MADHU JAIN, J. 1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 284/2008, titled Chandransh Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, with the following directions: “17. It is settled proposition of law that there is no arbitrariness in rectifying of an administrative error which can or do occur. It has been clearly brought out by learned Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 5341/2008 Page 1 of 17 NEGI Signing Date:16.01.2026 20:02:09 counsel for respondents that entire matter was result of administrative error which has being admitted by the DRM, Jhansi. Thus, as the applicant was neither required nor eligible to exercise his option which in fact is the foundation of his claim, the entire structure built by him on that foundation is necessarily rendered infructuous. It may not be out of place to observe that there would appear to be some basis in the submissions of the respondents that applicant managed/ manipulated to have his option and transfer to Delhi Division. In fact after completion of deputation with CRIS, he should have reported back to his parent Division which was not Delhi where he reported. It cannot be that applicant was unawar