Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9038/2014
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amit Anand and Mr. S.
Bansal, Advs.
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj, Mr. Maria Mugesh
Kannan and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through:
UOI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through:
Through:
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
23.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT
1. After these matters were heard for some time, Mr. Amit Anand, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are, in view of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, continuing to renew the respondents’ contract for five years at a time and will continue to do so, subject, however, to the outcome of Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending in the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 1 August 2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) 4350/2013[1].
2. In that view of the matter, he does not press these petitions but prays that the implementation of the impugned order be made subject to the outcome of the litigation pending before the Supreme Court.
3. We clarify that, therefore, while we are upholding the impugned order, and recording the statement of Mr. Anand that the renewal for the respondents would continue to be five years at the time, if the respondents are aggrieved by any action taken by the petitioners consequent to the disposal of the Civil Appeal 16354/2019 pending before the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, their rights to challenge the said decision in accordance with law shall remain reserved. UOI v Ajeesh A.
4. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.