Union Of India Through Revenue Secretary & ORS. v. Brijendra Singh Verma
$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4410/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH REVENUE SECRETARY & ORS.
.....Petitioners Through:
Mr.Vinay Yadav, SPC with Mr.Ansh Kalra, Ms.Kamna Beharni and Mr.Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. for UOI versus BRIJENDRA SINGH VERMA .....Respondent Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
O R D E R
% 07.04.2025 CM APPL. 20311/2025 (Exemption) 1.
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4410/2025 & CM APPL. 20310/2025 2.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'learned Tribunal') in O.A No. 570/2024 titled "Brijendra Singh Verma (B.S. Verma) v. Union of India & Ors.", disposing of the OA filed by the respondent herein, with the following directions: "3.
In view of what has been outlined above, the present OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim and representation of the applicant for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:00:37
years of service on the analogy of the judgment quoted verbatim above, which has further relied upon the judgment of M.
Subramaniam (supra).
4.
These directions shall be complied with by the respondents within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
3.
It is the case of the petitioners that the case of the respondent is not covered by the Judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. (C) No. 13225/2010 dated 06.09.2010 titled M. Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors.
4.
We are of the opinion that as the direction in the Impugned Order is only to consider the case of the respondent in terms of the said Judgment, it is for the petitioners to first consider the same and to pass an appropriate order upon such consideration. The only issue decided by the learned Tribunal in the Impugned Order is that the Judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (supra) is one passed in rem and not in personam. There can be no cavil to the same.
5.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition as warranting interference with the Impugned Order at this stage. 6.
The petition, alongwith the pending application, is accordingly dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 7, 2025/sg/ik Click here to check corrigendum, if any The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 16:00:37