Union Of India & ORS. v. Sanjeeva Bajpai
$~96 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5258/2026 & CM APPL. 25842/2026, CM APPL. 25843/2026 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, CGSC versus SANJEEVA BAJPAI .....Respondent Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL) % 20.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1.
This writ petition is directed against the following interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3 November 2025: "1.
Mr. Charak, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, requests for some more time to file affidavit in reply. This request is opposed by Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, on the ground that if the action proposed in pursuance of the impugned order for panel for promotion to the grade of Additional Director General is taken, this OA will become infructuous.
2.
In light of the above statement, we have heard the arguments of Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Charak, learned counsel for the respondents, on the applicant's prayer for interim relief.
3.
The grievance of the applicant is that his name has not been included in the panel for promotion for promotion to the post of Additional Director General in the Military Engineering Service, whereas the names of the officers' junior to him in the cadre of Chief Engineer have been included.
4.
We have perused the order dated 18.07.2024 for promotion to the grade of Chief Engineer for the year 2024, copy of which is KUMAR 18:58:32 W.P.(C) 5258/2026
annexed at Annexure A-2. The name of the applicant is at Serial No. 07 and all the candidates included in the panel for promotion, except Mr. Somesh Kumar, are junior to the applicant. 5.
At this stage, no reason is disclosed as to why the applicant's name is not included in the panel despite his seniority. 6.
In the above circumstances, by way of an interim relief, we direct that the panel for promotion of Chief Engineer to the grade of Additional Director General (ADG) dated 09.09.2025 shall not be acted upon, till further order(s).
7.
List on 11.12.2025."
2.
The recital of facts in the writ petition discloses nothing of what happened after 11 December 2025.
3.
Nor is there any explanation as to why, against the ad interim order, a writ petition was filed in April 2026. 4.
We see no reason to entertain this writ petition. 5.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty, however, with the petitioners, should they so choose, to move an application before the Tribunal for modification/vacation of the impugned order. If such application is moved, it would be for the Tribunal to deal with the application on its own merits. 6.
We express no view in that regard.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 20, 2026/dsn KUMAR 18:58:32 W.P.(C) 5258/2026