Union Of India & Ors. vs Narendra Pal & Ors.

$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010501952026
+ W.P.(C) 15400/2026, CAV 495/2026, CM APPL. 72228/2026,
CM APPL. 72229/2026, CM APPL. 72230/2026 & CM APPL.
72231/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Mukesh Pandey, Ms.
Saumya Srivastav, Advs. and Mr. G.L.
Meena
versus
NARENDRA PAL & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ritwik Parikh, Ms. Heena
Khatun and Mr. Rajat K. Mittal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 15.10.2026
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition, which has been filed on or after 8 September
2026, assails an order dated 2 April 2019 passed by the Central
1
Administrative Tribunal in OA 1042/2016.
2. Seven years have passed between the passing of the order
passed by the Tribunal and the filing of the present writ petition.
1
“Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 1 of 9

3. The Supreme Court has held, in State of Odisha v. Managing
2
Committee of Namatara Girls High School , that highly belated writ
petitions should not be entertained by the Court. The Supreme Court
has also clarified that bureaucratic delay cannot constitute a legitimate
ground to entertain such writ petitions.
4. The proscription against entertaining of writ petitions which are
highly belated also stands emphasised by the Supreme Court in
3
Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley .
5. In the present case, the order under challenge was passed by the
Tribunal on 2 April 2019.
6. Four years thereafter , in 2023, an application was moved by the
Union of India for correction of a reference, in the order, to a
judgment passed by the Supreme Court. There is no explanation
worth the name whatsoever for the delay of four years between 2019
and 2023 in moving the said application.
7. The application itself was decided on 31 January 2024, which is
again more than two and half years before the present writ petition
was filed.
8. Thereafter, the Union of India approached this Court by way of
WP(C) 12313/2024.
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 191
3
(2024) 15 SCC 215
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 2 of 9

9. On 4 September 2024, the Union of India submitted before an
earlier Division Bench of this Court that it was withdrawing the writ
petition with liberty to file a review petition before the Tribunal. The
petition was, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a
review petition.
10. Purportedly under the liberty so granted, the Union of India
approached the Tribunal by way of RA 38/2025, along with MA
604/2025, for condonation of delay in filing the review application.
11. The Union of India appeared before the Tribunal on 7 April
2025 and withdrew the MA as well as the RA in view of para 6 of the
order dated 2 April 2019 passed in the OA, to which we would
presently refer. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the MA as well
as the RA to be withdrawn by order dated 7 April 2025, which read as
under:
“ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:
M.A. No.604/2025 in R.A. No. 38/2025 in O.A. No.1042/2016
The instant MA has been filed by the applicants seeking
condonation of delay in filing the captioned Review Application
seeking review of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in O.A.
No.1042/2016.
2. Mr. Archit Vasudeva, learned counsel for the applicants, at
the outset, seeks leave to withdraw the both the MA and the RA in
light of the observations of this Tribunal in para no. 6 of the order
dated 02.04.2019 passed in the subject OA.
3. Leave, as prayed for, is granted in accordance with law.
The MA and the RA are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 3 of 9

12. Mr. Shukla submits, on instructions from the departmental
representative who is present in Court, that, after the passing of the
aforesaid order dated 7 April 2025, withdrawing MA 604/2025 as well
as RA 38/2025, a fresh application was filed for recalling the said
order, which was thereafter recalled and the RA re-listed for hearing.
The order passed on the recall application has not been made available
to us. However, we believe Mr. Shukla that such an order must have
been passed as we find that RA 38/2025 was again taken up by the
Tribunal on 20 May 2026, on which date the following order was
passed:
“ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:
By way of filing this Review Application, the applicants are
seeking the review of the order dated 02.04.2019 in O.A.
No.1042/2016. By the said order, the aforementioned OA was
disposed of, leaving it open to the applicants therein to work out
the remedies depending upon the outcome of Civil Appeal
No.3110/2016 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Kishan
Lall Sharma & Anr. It is reported that the said Civil Appeal
No.3110/2016 has also been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
2. Mr. Vasudeva, leanred counsel for the applicants, submits
that subsequently the issue in the present application has again
been carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and SLPs are pending.
3. In our opinion, SLPs filed subsequent to the order dated
02.04.2019, cannot be a ground for the review of the said order.
Therefore, no error, apparent on the face of record is pointable.
Accordingly, the R.A. is dismissed.
3. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No
costs.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 4 of 9

13. The Union of India now seeks to challenge the original order
dated 2 April 2019 in OA 1042/2016, the order dated 31 January 2024
whereby the order dated 2 April 2019 was corrected at the instance of
the Union of India itself , and the order dated 20 May 2026 passed in
RA 38/2025.
14. The present writ petition, to our mind, deserves to be dismissed
even on delay and laches alone. An order dated 2 April 2019 is being
challenged in 2026. For four years after the passing of the order dated
2 April 2019, there was complete inaction on the part of the Union of
India, before the application for correction of the reference to the
Supreme Court judgment was filed. Another two and a half years
have passed between the decision on the application and the filing of
the present writ petition. During this period, the Union of India filed a
writ petition, withdrew it with liberty to file a Review Application
before the Tribunal, filed the Review Application belatedly, withdrew
the Review Application, and sought recall of the order withdrawing
the Review Application, which the Tribunal, perhaps over-graciously,
allowed. Now the Union of India seeks to cover up all the delay by
including, in its challenge, the order passed in the Review
Application.
15. We are not inclined to countenance such an approach.
16. Even on merits, we find no reason to interfere with the present
matter. The original order dated 2 April 2019, passed by the Tribunal
in OA 1042/2016, reads thus:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 5 of 9

“ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
This O.A. is filed claiming the relief of re-fixation and re-
computation of pension, and other ancillary benefits. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment dated 12.03.1979 passed by the Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court in Mrs. Afsar Jahan Begum v. Union of
India (Special Appeal No.9/1975), which is said to have been
affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, through an order dated
20.07.1988.
2. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the O.A.
3. On 20.12.2018, it was represented that the issue regarding
re-fixation of pension of the employees, similarly situated as
applicants, is under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Therefore, the O.A. was adjourned sine die.
4. Today, we heard learned counsel for applicants and learned
counsel for respondents.
5. The question as to whether the benefit of addition of 55%
of pay scale in the context of working out of pension for loco
employees is available for the post held by the applicants herein,
was the subject matter of several cases. In some cases, the O.A(s).
were allowed and even the W.P(s). & SLP(s) were rejected.
However, it is brought to our notice that in the recent past, the
matter is once again taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing
Civil Appeal No.5666/2017 ( Running Staff Association & others
v. Union of India & another ). Both the parties agree that the said
matter is yet to be decided.
6. We, therefore, dispose of this O.A. leaving it open to the
applicants to work out the remedies depending on the outcome of
Civil Appeal No.5666/2017, pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
17. Thus, the order was passed on consent between learned Counsel
for the parties, who submitted that the issue in controversy was
pending before the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has passed no order
on merits. It merely directed the parties should work out their rights
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 6 of 9

on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal
which was pending before it.
18. Four years after the aforesaid order was passed, the Ministry of
Railways moved the Tribunal, stating that the matter which was
pending in the Supreme Court, and to which the order was required to
refer was not Civil Appeal 5666/2017 ( Running Staff Association &
4
Ors. v. Union of India & Anr .) but Civil Appeal 3110/2016 ( Union
5
of India & Anr. v. Kishan Lall Sharma & Ors .).
19. Accordingly, the Tribunal, accepting this submission, corrected
its order by the following order dated 31 January 2024:
“Order of The Tribunal
Μ.Α. Νο.3750/2023 (correction)
This M.A. has been filed by the applicant for modification in
paragraphs 5 & 6 of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed by this
Tribunal in Ο.A. Νο.1042/2016.
The applicant submits that the reference of Civil Appeal
No.5666/2017 ( Running Staff Association & others v. Union of
India & another ) has been wrongly given in the order dated
02.04.2019 and the correct reference would be Civil Appeal
No.3110/2016 ( Union of India & another V. Kishan Lall Sharma
& others ). Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has
no objection if the M.A. to this extent is allowed.
In the above circumstances, we substitute the reference of Civil
Appeal No.5666/2017 ( Running Staff Association & others v.
Union of India & another ) with "Civil Appeal No.3110/2016
( Union of India & another. Kishan Lall Sharma & others )” in
paragraphs 5 & 6 of the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in O.A.
No.1042/2016.
4
Order dated 30 July 2025 in Civil Appeal 5666/2017
5
Order dated 22 February 2023 in Civil Appeal 3110/2016
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 7 of 9

The M.A. is disposed of accordingly.
The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in
the aforesaid order and issue a copy of revised order to the parties.”
20. We are frankly perplexed as to how the Union of India can even
claim to be aggrieved by such an order, which was passed on consent
between the parties and, in fact, at the instance of the Union of India
itself. The Supreme Court has clarified in, inter alia , Manjunath
6
Tirakappa Malagi v. Gurusiddappa and Pushpa Devi Bhagat v.
7
Rajinder Singh that a consent order cannot be challenged, except by
averring that the consent was granted without authorization, or
contrary to law, in which case, too, the Court which recorded the
consent would have to be moved in that regard.
21. RA 38/2025, which was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by
this Court on 4 September 2024, acknowledged the fact that Civil
Appeal 3110/2016, in Union of India & Ors. v. Kishan Lall Sharma
& Anr. also stood decided by the Supreme Court, but sought to submit
that the issue in controversy was again pending before the Supreme
Court in certain other SLPs.
22. The Tribunal, to our mind, has very correctly dismissed the RA.
The OA had been disposed of, by consent between learned Counsel
for the parties, who submitted that the issue in controversy was
pending before the Supreme Court in Running Staff Association &
Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. which was subsequently corrected on
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 835
7
(2006) 5 SCC 566
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 8 of 9

the application of the Union of India to Union of India & Ors. v.
Kishan Lall Sharma & Anr. Admittedly, the said Civil Appeal stands
decided by the Supreme Court.
23. Government servants cannot be compelled to litigate ad
infinitum for their just and legal rights.
24. In that view of the matter, no case for review of the order
passed by the Tribunal existed. The Tribunal has, therefore, correctly
dismissed the review application by order dated 20 May 2026.
25. There is, therefore, no substance whatsoever, even on merits, to
the challenge raised in the present writ petition to the orders dated 2
April 2019, 31 January 2024 and 20 May 2026 passed by the Tribunal.
26. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of
delay and laches as well as on merits.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 15, 2026/ AR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2026
15:52:07
W.P.(C) 15400/2026 Page 9 of 9