Union of India and Anr v. Mukesh Meena

Delhi High Court · 07 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5465-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Vinod Kumar
W.P.(C) 8891/2026
2026:DHC:5465-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a CAT order on ad-hoc promotion as infructuous due to the respondent's intention to seek modification of the order, reserving liberty to approach the court thereafter.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 8891/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8891/2026 & CM APPL. 41607/2026, CM APPL.
41608/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya CGSC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advs.
VERSUS
MUKESH MEENA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohtany, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER (ORAL)
07.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 6 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 850/2024, whereby the following directions have been issued in para 34:

“34. In view of forgoing analysis, the present O.A. has merit and
is deserved to be allowed. As a result thereof, the O.A. is allowed
with following directions:
(i) The Respondents are directed to consider to grant ad-hoc promotion to the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 06.07.2021 after opening the sealed cover of the DPC recommendation and further to
“the Tribunal” hereinafter W.P.(C) 8891/2026 accord all consequential benefits to the Applicant, as admissible in law, including salary and allowances of the promoted post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 06.07.2021;

(ii) The above mentioned directions should be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order;

(iii) All pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.”

2. At the outset, Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohtany, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that, in view of developments which have taken place after the passing of the judgment, he would be moving the Tribunal for a modification of the judgment and is not, therefore, presently insisting on compliance with the order of the Tribunal.

3. In that view of the matter, reserving liberty with either party to approach this Court in case they are aggrieved by the decision taken on modification application, as and when moved, this writ petition does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JULY 7, 2026