Union of India and Anr. v. Syed Sajid Ali

Delhi High Court · 13 Mar 2026 · 2026:DHC:2349-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
W.P.(C) 9911/2017
2026:DHC:2349-DB
administrative appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court clarified that only the extensions of the respondent's suspension from 3/4 January 2013 onwards were illegal and condoned delay in filing the review petition.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 9911/2017
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9911/2017
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Ms. Annu Singh, Mr. Rajneesh K. Sharma, Ms. Shivangi Sharma and Ms. Prachi, Advs.
VERSUS
SYED SAJID ALI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Smriti Ahuja and Ms. Sahil Khan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
13.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL. 57862/2025 (Exemption)
JUDGMENT

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 57864/2025

3. This application seeks condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the review petition. W.P.(C) 9911/2017

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed.

REVIEW PET. 472/2025 & CM APPL. 57863/2025

5. We have heard Mr. Singh on the review petition. Mr. Singh submits that as he understands the order under review, this Court has approved the setting aside of the entire period of suspension of the respondent starting from 3 October 2012.

6. We have clearly held, in para 15 of our judgment, that the first extension of the respondent’s suspension, as well as all subsequent extensions of the respondent’s suspension, were illegal. The first extension of the respondent’s suspension was on 3/4 January 2013. We have, therefore, only held the period of suspension of the respondent after 3/4 January 2013 to be illegal.

7. Our order is clear. No occasion arises for any clarification.

8. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J. MARCH 13, 2026