Delhi High Court
Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors on 6 July, 2026
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 3 July 2026
Pronounced on: 6 July 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8366/2026, CM APPL. 39995/2026
SHRI SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal,
Adv.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
% JUDGMENT
06.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The somewhat compendious prayer clause in this writ petition
reads as under:
“In view of the foregoing facts, grounds, legal submissions, and
judicial precedents, the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully
prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
A. Allow hearing in the matter on day to day basis;
B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned
Notice dated 16.04.2026, the Impugned Order dated
14.05.2026, and Paragraph 17(vi) of the CAT order dated
11.11.2025 as a jurisdictional nullity;
C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to forthwith implement and declare the
Petitioner’s “Disability Status” as a ‘High Support Need’
individual (Sections 2 (l, s-t) and 38 of RPwD Act) with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 1 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
retrospective effect from 17.11.2018;
D. Issue a Writ of Mandamus: directing the
Respondents to enforce absolute statutory compliance with
the superior Administrative Order dated 04.04.2022 passed
by Respondent No. 4 in accordance with Sections 3 and
20(4) of RPwD Act, and permanently clear all financial
gridlocks by directing the Respondents to grant:
i) Actual, active financial and promotional
benefits to the post of Section Officer w.e.f.
01.01.2025 (extinguishing the hollow, deceptive
‘notional’ pay fixation order dated 09.10.2025),
along with all regular promotional arrears prior to
superannuation;
ii) Full restoration and continuous maintenance
of all withheld arrears of salary, annual increments,
bonuses, HPCA/CA, and Transport Allowance (TA)
at double the normal rates under the mandate of the
Department of Expenditure, GOI OM dated
15.09.2022 and 29-07-2025, along with 18% penal
interest;
iii) Immediate release of the 3rd MACP benefits
w.e.f. 23.07.2023 and all withheld annual
increments from July 2023 onwards (arrears + 18%
penal interest), with full integration into his final
Retiral Benefits, Pension, Gratuity, and Leave
Encashment;
E. Issue a Writ of Mandamus awarding ₹75,00,000/- as
exemplary, punitive, and compensatory damages under the
Public Law Remedy framework, to be recovered directly
and personal-liability wise from the personal estates and
active salaries of Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 for misfeasance
in public office.”;
F. ISSUE A FURTHER SPECIFIC DIRECTION that
the aforementioned compensation amount of ₹ 75,00,000/-
be recovered directly, proportionately, and personal-
liability-wise from the active monthly salaries and personal
estates of Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in their individual
capacities, in accordance with the statutory accountability
mandated under Sections 3, 20, 38, 89, and 92 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to penalize their
deliberate, malicious, and malafide acts of personal and
oppressive misfeasance in public office, thereby ensuring
that the public exchequer is not burdened for their rogue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 2 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
administrative actions;
G. DIRECT the Chief Secretary, GNCTD (Respondent
No. 1) to constitute a High-Level Committee to investigate
the “Administrative Labyrinth” and “Loss of Records” by
filing a status report within two weeks, specifically
mentioned throughout this petition, and to fix responsibility
on all the officials from Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 who
deliberately suppressed the Permanent Disability Certificate
dated 21-08-2019 and the Leave Committee
Recommendations of 15.12.2020, distorted, manipulated,
and misrepresented substantive material documentary facts,
and framed his certified permanent disability (Disability
Status) as a mere “medical condition” for over seven years;
H. TAKE SUO MOTU COGNIZANCE UNDER
ARTICLE 215 of the Constitution of India, read with
Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against
Respondent Nos. 4 to 11 for executing a colourable
exercise of power, committing constructive disobedience of
the protective declarations passed by this Hon’ble High
Court in Paragraph 7 of the Order dated 06.04.2026, and
perpetrating a fraud upon statutory bodies;
I. DIRECT the initiation of substantive Contempt
proceedings against the Respondents for wilful and
deliberate disobedience of the judicial order dated
06.04.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court, including the
distortion, suppression, and concealment of substantive
material facts having filed the WP(C) 2997/2026 against
the Petitioner as a General Employee of GNCTD without
disclosing “Disability Status”, to misguide the Court, under
Sections 2(b), 2(c), and 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, and Section 92 of the RPwD Act, 2016, against
the guilty Respondents for atrocities committed against the
High Support Need Permanent Disabled Petitioner over a
period of more than 7 years;
J. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER(S) as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice,
equity, and good conscience.”
2. The prayers in the writ petition may be divided into three
categories. The first category consists of the prayer, forming part of
prayer (B), to set aside para 17(vi) of the order dated 11 November
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 3 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1. The second set
of reliefs are all the other reliefs sought in the writ petition, except
prayers (H) and (I). The third category of relief is the prayer for
initiation of proceedings for contempt against some of the
respondents, contained in prayers (H) and (I).
3. Insofar prayers (H) and (I) are concerned, we are of the opinion
that they would have to be separately agitated by the petitioner by
filing a contempt petition. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the prayers, we reserve liberty with the petitioner to move an
appropriate contempt petition, if so advised, with respect to prayers
(H) and (I) in this writ petition.
4. We proceed to deal with the remaining prayers.
5. Para 17(vi) of the order dated 11 November 2025 passed by the
Tribunal merely permits the respondent to, in case they desire to
revisit the decision to grant annual increments, bonus, TA and
HPCA/PCA, do so with prior notice to the petitioner, with the grounds
for revisiting the said emoluments being clearly set out in the notice.
For ready reference, we may reproduce para 17 of the order dated 11
November 2025:
17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, O.A. No.
2183/2024 is allowed with the following directions: –
i. The impugned order/action(s) of the respondents
vide which they have stopped the payment of TA,1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 4 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
PCA/HPCA, bonus and annual increments are set aside as
they are found to be arbitrary and illegal.
ii. The order/action of the respondents in effecting
recovery of TA, HPCA/PCA, bonus and annual increments
are also found to be illegal and arbitrary.
iii. The respondents are directed to make payment of
annual increments, PCA/HPCA, annual bonus and TA
keeping in view the earlier approval given the Principal
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, and implemented by
the respondents through various orders referred to above.
iv. If any of the alleged payments has already been
recovered by the respondents, the respondents are directed
to refund the same to the applicant.
v. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by
the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order,
vi. However, it is provided that in case the respondents
find that the orders regarding grant of annual increments
bonus, TA and HPCA/PCA are required to be revisited, the
respondents shall be at liberty to do the same, however, with
prior notice to the applicant and such notice shall also
contain the grounds in support of the contemplated action.
6. A reading of the judgment dated 11 November 2025 passed by
the Tribunal in OA 2183/2024, which contains para 17(vi), reveals
that the stoppage of PA, HPCA/PCA, TA and bonus of the petitioner
has been set aside by the Tribunal as having been effected without
notice to the petitioner and, therefore, in violation of the principles of
natural justice. There is, therefore, no illegality in the Tribunal
reserving liberty with the respondent to take a fresh decision in that
regard, if they still felt that the emoluments released to the petitioner
were required to be revisited, but with advance notice to the petitioner.
Mr. Karwal, who appears for the petitioner, has not been able to point
out any legal infirmity in such a direction.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 5 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
7. We, therefore, do not find any error in the direction contained in
para 17(vi) of the judgment dated 11 November 2025 of the Tribunal.
The prayer for quashing para 17(vi) is, therefore, rejected.
8. In so far as the remaining prayers in the writ petition are
concerned, we are of the opinion that this Court is coram non judice in
view of paras 93 and 99 of the judgment of the Seven Judge Bench of
the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI2, which reads as
under:
93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our
conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The
Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory
provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they
cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme
Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically
entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is
only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High
Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test
the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power
of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The
Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of
their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal
which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be
unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned
may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals,
rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to
adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High
Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to
act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law
for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will
not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even
in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations
(except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the
particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal concerned.
2 (1997) 3 SCC 261
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 6 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
*****
99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause
2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the
extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the
Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution,
are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of
jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis
of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be
unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts
under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of
our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other
courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in
discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the
Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and
Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence
to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules.
All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to
scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will,
nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect
of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not,
therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts
even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations
(except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal
is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is
to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.
9. L. Chandra Kumar acts as an absolute bar to High Courts
acting as courts of first instance in any matter which is amenable to
adjudication by the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section
14(1)3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19854. In fact, the
3 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.–
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal
shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable
immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court ) in relation to–
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to
any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with
defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;
(b) all service matters concerning--
(i) a member of any All-India Service; or
(ii) a person not being a member of an All-India Service or a person
referred to in clause (c) appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil
Signature Not Verified post under the Union; or
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 7 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that challenges, even
if they are to statutory provisions dealing with service, must also, in
the first instance, be preferred before the Tribunal, unless the
provision under challenge is contained in the AT Act itself. This later
exception has been carved out in L. Chandra Kumar, only because it
is not permissible in any judicial authority to contest the validity of
any provision of the very statute to which it owes its existence.
10. A bare reading of prayers in the writ petition, except for the
challenge to para 17(vi) of the judgment dated 11 November 2025, in
OA 2183/2024, and prayers (H) and (I), are “service matters” within
the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) and (b) read with Section 3(q)5 of the
AT Act, and are clearly amenable to adjudication by the Tribunal.
Section 14(1)(b) extends the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to all service
matters concerning a person appointed to any civil service post of the
State or any civil post under the Union” and “service matters” as
(iii) a civilian not being a member of an All-India Service or a person
referred to in clause (c) appointed to any defence services or a post connected
with defence,
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory
of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation 3 or
society owned or controlled by the Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the
Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii)
or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a
State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation 3 or society or other
body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.
Explanation.–For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union”
in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.
4 “AT Act” hereinafter
5 3(q) “service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation
or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects–
(i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
(ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and
superannuation;
(iii) leave of any kind;
Signature Not Verified (iv) disciplinary matters; or
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 8 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
defined in Section 3(q) of the AT Act as meaning “all matters relating
to the conditions of service … any other matters whatsoever”.
11. Indeed, Mr. Karwal was also not in a position to satisfy us that
the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition, except for
prayers (H) and (I) would not constitute “service matters” within the
meaning of the AT Act.
12. We may note that this writ petition had come up for preliminary
hearing before the Vacation Bench of this Court on 24 June 2026.
The objection to the effect that this writ petition would not lie before
this Court and that the petitioner would have to appropriately
approach the Tribunal was raised even on that date. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the petitioner was taken by surprise.
13. The petitioner filed an application for early hearing, which was
listed before us on 2 July 2026. The question of this Court passing
any order in this matter, including an order for expedited hearing,
would arise only if this Court has jurisdiction to proceed with it. As,
to our mind, paras 93 and 99 of the decision in L. Chandra Kumar
renders this Court coram non judice with respect to the prayers in this
writ petition (except the prayer for setting aside para 17(vi) of the
judgment dated 11 November 2025 passed by the Tribunal and
prayers (H) & (I) which seeks initiation of contempt proceedings), we
were unwilling to proceed with the matter until we were satisfied that
this Court has jurisdiction to do so, as any action taken by a court
without jurisdiction would be a nullity. However, as Mr. Karwal
Signature Not Verified (v) any other matter whatsoever;
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 9 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
submitted that the papers of the case were not readily available with
him, and sought a day’s time to address this Court, we renotified the
matter for 3 July 2026.
14. Mr. Karwal has addressed us in detail on above aspect and has
also placed on record elaborate point-wise written submissions in an
effort to dispel our notion that we have no jurisdiction to proceed in
this writ petition.
15. The pleas advanced in the written submissions are, to our mind,
completely bereft of merits and suffer from a basic misunderstanding
of the law on various aspects. We deal with them, seriatim, as under.
15.1 The very first submission of the petitioner reads thus:
“1. Bypassing the Tribunal via High Court mandate:
This Hon’ble Court in paragraph 1 of its order dated 06.04.2026
passed in WP(C) No. 2997/2026 explicitly reserved the absolute
legal right of the petitioner to directly approach this Court if he is
aggrieved by any subsequent action or notice issued by the
department.”
We are sorry to note that, in para 1 of the written submissions, which
is reproduced verbatim from the writ petition itself, the petitioner has
misquoted the order passed by this Court. This is, to our mind, ex facie
objectionable. Para 11 of the order dated 6 April 2026 passed by this
Court reads thus:
“11. Needless to say, should the respondent continue to be
aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondent in accordance
with the order passed by the Tribunal, the right of the respondent in
law shall remain reserved.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 10 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
Clearly, this Court, in its order dated 6 April 2026, has not permitted
the petitioner directly to approach this Court, if he continued to
remain aggrieved.
15.2 There is a clear misstatement, therefore, in the very first ground
advanced by the petitioner. This Court had only permitted the
petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in law available to him, if he
continued to remain aggrieved with the action of the respondent. That
is entirely different from permitting the petitioner to re-approach this
Court. Indeed, grant of any such permission would be in the teeth of
para 99 of L Chandra Kumar.
15.3 The second ground advanced in the written submissions reads
as under:
“2. The Rule of Exception due to Institutional Fraud: It is a
pristine principle of constitutional law (Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks6) that the existence of an alternate
remedy is a rule of discretion and not a bar of jurisdiction. Where
the impugned executive actions are in gross violation of natural
justice, completely lack jurisdictional competence, violate
fundamental rights under Article 21, and are built on recorded
administrative fraud, the Writ Court’s extraordinary intervention is
absolute.”
This submission, again, misses the wood for the trees. We are not
relegating the petitioner to any alternate remedy. The question of
alternate remedy arises only where more than one forum has
jurisdiction. If this court were to possess jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to deal with the writ petition and felt
that another, equally efficacious remedy, was available to the
6 (1998) 8 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 11 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
petitioner, and required the petitioner to avail that remedy, it would be
of case of relegating the petitioner to an alternate remedy. In the
present case, there is no question of any alternate remedy, as there is
only one remedy available to the petitioner in view of para 99 of L.
Chandra Kumar. This Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. It is coram non judice. The only forum which has jurisdiction
to deal with the prayers in this writ petition, as a Court of first
instance, is the Administrative Tribunal. We repeat, therefore, that we
are not relegating the petitioner to any alternate remedy and are only
requiring him to approach the only form which can deal with his
grievances as a court of first instance.
15.4 The third submission of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has
“already shown perversity by abdicating its functions” and that the
petitioner is due to superannuate on 31 August 2026. These, needless
to say, cannot constitute grounds for us to bypass the mandate
contained in paras 93 & 99 of L. Chandra Kumar and exercise
jurisdiction as a court of first instance with respect to the prayers
contained in this writ petition, with which the Tribunal has never had
an occasion to grapple.
15.5 It is also pleaded, in the written submissions, that hyper-
technicalities cannot defeat claims to human rights. We are of the
opinion that requiring the petitioner to approach the Tribunal cannot
be said to be a hyper-technicality. It is the only course of action
available to us in view of Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of
India read with the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar. It is obvious that
a litigant cannot approach an incompetent forum and insist that his lis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 12 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
be decided, on the ground that it involves “human rights”.
15.6 The next ground raised by the petitioner reads thus:
“3. THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ENTERTAIN IS
ALREADY EXHAUSTED:
The objection that this Writ Petition is barred by the rule of
alternative remedy under L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,
(1997) 3 SCC 261 is factually and legally incorrect. This Hon’ble
Court already admitted the main Writ Petition on 24-06-2026 and
formally issued notices to the Respondents. Once a Writ Petition
has been entertained and notices have been issued by a coordinate
bench, the question of maintainability based on an alternative
remedy cannot be re-raised by a regular bench to deny an urgent
application for an interim hearing.”
15.7 This ground again manifests complete lack of understanding, by
the petitioner, of the court procedure. This Bench, in holding that this
petition is without jurisdiction, and in relegating the petitioner to the
Tribunal, is not acting contrary to the decision of the Coordinate Bench
in its order dated 24 June 2026. The Coordinate Bench only issued
notice in this writ petition. In fact, the Coordinate Bench also noticed
the objection regarding maintainability, but did not express any view
thereon. To our mind, proceeding with the writ petition is not possible
for us, in view of para 99 of L. Chandra Kumar. There is no principle
that, once notice has been issued in the writ petition by a Coordinate
Bench, the question of maintainability based on alternate remedy
cannot be decided by another Bench. We reiterate, however, that this
is not a case of maintainability on the ground of existence of an
alternate remedy but a case in which this Court has no jurisdiction to
proceed with the matter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 13 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
15.8 The next submission of the petitioner is that, as the order dated
14 May 2026, of which the petitioner seeks annulment by the present
writ petition, was issued pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court
in its order dated 6 April 2026, and was actually not in compliance
with the order dated 6 April 2026, as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction
to “police, interpret or punish the deliberate violation of a High Court
Division Bench mandate” and that this Court under Article 226 is the
only proper forum therefor. This submission, again, is completely
misconceived in law. Even if the order dated 14 May 2026 purports to
have been passed in exercise of the liberty granted by this Court in its
order dated 6 April 2026, the grievance of the petitioner with respect
to the order dated 14 May 2026 constitutes a new distinct and
independent cause of action. This Court cannot, in the teeth of para 99
of L Chandra Kumar, examine the correctness of the order dated 14
May 2026 before the Tribunal has had an occasion to do so. Nor can
the petitioner directly approach this Court challenging the order dated
14 May 2026 without approaching the Tribunal in the first instance.
Contrary to what the written submissions of the petitioner states,
therefore, the Tribunal is the only proper forum which the petitioner
can approach, challenging the order dated 14 May 2026.
15.9 It is lastly alleged that the Tribunal stands rendered functus
officio, in view of its judgment dated 11 November 2025 in OA
2183/2024. It is specifically asserted, in the written submissions, thus:
“Once a statutory tribunal passes a final judgment, it becomes
functus officio and holds no legal power to monitor or interpret
subsequent executive orders.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 14 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
This submission is, once again, thoroughly misconceived in law.
There is no want of authority, in the Tribunal, to deal with a challenge
to executive orders which are passed pursuant to the liberty granted by
the Tribunal in a judicial decision. These executive orders, such as the
order dated 14 May 2026, we reiterate, constitute a separate, new and
independent cause of action. If the petitioner desires to challenge the
said order, he has to do so before the Tribunal and before no other
forum.
16. Entertainment of this writ petition by us would be an affront to
para 99 of the judgment of the 7 Judge bench of the Supreme Court in
L Chandra Kumar. It is illegal and improper for a Court which is
conscious that it has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, to do
so.
17. We, therefore, regret that it is not possible for us to deal with
the prayers in this writ petition, save and except the prayer for setting
aside para 17(vi) of the judgment dated 11 November 2025 of the
Tribunal in OA 2183/2024, which we have already held to be without
merit.
18. We find substance, however, in Mr. Karwal’s lament that the
petitioner is suffering from 81% percent of disability and that
requiring the petitioner to knock again and again on the doors of
justice may result in a travesty thereof. At the same time, we cannot
exercise jurisdiction on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds, where
the Supreme Court has held otherwise.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 15 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
19. In order to expedite matters, we had suggested to Mr. Karwal
that we could transfer the record of this case to the Tribunal so that it
could be dealt with expeditiously. Mr. Karwal was, however, not
agreeable to the suggestion and required us to pass a judicial order on
the aspect of maintainability. We have, therefore, perforce had to pass
the present judgment.
20. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition in the following
terms:
(i) The prayer to set aside para 17 (vi) of the judgment dated
11 November 2025 of the Tribunal in OA 2183/2024 is rejected.
(ii) Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to agitate prayers
(H) and (I) in this writ petition by way of a separate contempt
petition/contempt application, if so advised.
(iii) In so far as the remaining prayers in this writ petition are
concerned, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to move the
Tribunal in substantive proceedings for the grant thereof. In case
the petitioner so desires, he is at liberty to approach the Registry
of this Court to transmit the record of this writ petition to the
Tribunal, in order to avoid the exercise of refiling the papers in
the Tribunal. In that event, the Tribunal would register the
present writ petition as a substantive OA/TA and proceed to deal
with the matter in accordance with law.
(iv) We also request the Tribunal to take this matter as
expeditiously as possible, particularly keeping in mind the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 16 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
physical incapacity from which the petitioner suffers. For this
reason, the parties would appear before the Tribunal on 20 July
2026. We request the Tribunal to thereafter to proceed with the
matter with all due expedition and attempt to render a final
judgment thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of four months from the first date of hearing fixed by us
hereinabove.
(v) Neither side would be entitled to take any adjournment
on the date when this matter is listed before the Tribunal or on
any subsequent date thereafter, save for rare and exceptional
reasons.
21. Needless to say, should either side be aggrieved by the decision
of the Tribunal, the remedies in law as available thereagainst would
stand reserved.
22. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, with no orders as to costs.
23. The date already fixed i.e., 17 August 2026 stands cancelled.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 06, 2026
AR/DSN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR W.P.(C) 8366/2026 Page 17 of 17
Signing Date:06.07.2026
10:50:25
