Mahendra & ORS. v. Union Of India

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1248/2023, CM APPL. 39945/2023 & CM APPL. 13794/2026 MAHENDRA & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Kshitiz Jain and Mr. Rohan Chandra, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG for UOI (Through VC) with Mrs.

Nidhi Raman, CGSC for UOI, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V.

Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr.

Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman, Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocates for UOI along with Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, Chief Legal Superintendent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

% 25.04.2026 1.

This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode. 2.

In view of the Notification bearing No. 64/G-4/Genl.-1/DHC dated 27th February, 2026, the present matter is taken up today, i.e., 25th April, 2026. 3.

This is a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 02nd June, 2023 passed by the Chairman, Principal Bench, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi seeking following prayers:

"A.

Set-aside/ quash the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed the Ld. Chairman, Principal Bench, RCT, Delhi, and the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by ld. Vice Chairman (Tech), RCT Allahabad, in case OA/II/U/LKO/1075/2016, titled as Mahendra 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 27/04/2026 at 11:22:13

v. Union of India.

B.

Order that the amended rule 8 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Procedure Rule 1989, has no retrospective effect, and the same have prospective effect only, C.

Order that the proceedings in the above said case, i.e., OA/II/U/LKO/1075/2016, titled as Mahendra v. Union of India, filed by the petitioners shall be continued and to be proceeded with and be decided by the same Bench, where the same were/ are pending."

4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing prayer (A) of the present petition as it has now become infructuous. However, he seeks to press prayer (B) of the petition.

5.

Heard. Record perused.

6.

As the main relief has become infructuous, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition with respect to prayer (B). Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 25, 2026/nd/tp 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 27/04/2026 at 11:22:13