Delhi District Court
Mohan Lal vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi ... on 24 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT010042192020
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 351/2020
CNR No. - DLCT01-004219-2020
Mohan Lal
S/o Sh. Sher Singh
A-301, Maghdoot Apartments,
Plot- 19, Sector- 7, Dwarka,
Delhi ........ Plaintiff
Versus
National Capital Territory of Delhi
through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi
5th Level, Delhi Secretariat,
Delhi-110002 ........ Defendant
ORDER
1. By this Order this court shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of the defendant, on 04.11.2020, under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.
CS DJ 351/20 1 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
2. Reply to aforesaid application of the defendant has already been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Arguments have already been heard on behalf of both the parties. On behalf of the plaintiff submissions were made by his Counsel as well as by the plaintiff himself.
3. Before adverting to the aforesaid application, it is necessary to put forth the case of the plaintiff, in brief, as narrated in the plaint:-
(a) That in the year 1984, Government of India had appointed the plaintiff to the then Delhi & Anman & Nicobar Islands Civil Services and posted in the service of the then Delhi Administration (which herein arrayed as defendant). Plaintiff consequently joined the defendant on 15.06.1984.
(b) On 26.12.2011, the Government of India had promoted him to Indian Administrative services against Select List for 2009.
(c) On superannuation, the defendant retired the plaintiff from service on 31.01.2017.
(d) During the course of services, when the plaintiff was serving administration of Daman & Diu, the defendant conveyed vide its Finance Secretary's order dated 08.04.1999 to the plaintiff that Administrator of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli had granted him seven additional increments of pay (with effect from 15.06.1984) as per orders/decision issued under Fundamental Rule, 27 and subsequently notified the same in the Official Gazettes.
(e) In the year 2002 while the plaintiff was serving the defendant, he applied (through an application) to fix his pay in respect of said increments as per the method which was applied to the advance CS DJ 351/20 2 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 increment of the defendant's corresponding officer of Delhi Judicial services, with effect from 01.01.1996. On the application of the plaintiff, the defendant sought some clarifications from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India which remains pending with the Govt. of India for long.
(f) So, to get the matter expedited, the plaintiff filed an Original Application No. 591/2004 in Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal disposed of the said OA by directing the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to take a conscious decision upon the same.
(g) On 04.08.2005, an Under Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued an order and regretted the Government's inability to accede to the request of plaintiff for keeping his seven advance increments intact in number throughout his employment and resultant pay fixation etc. since 01.01.1996.
(h) On 28.12.2016, a Deputy Secretary namely Ms. Promila Mitra of General Administration Department of the defendant, in terms of order dated 04.08.2005, had issued an Office Order No. 41/1226/2016/GAD/Admn./6240 for withdrawing of the plaintiff's statedly seven advance increments (but actually nine increments) of his pay.
(i) On the same day i.e. 28.12.2016, the said Deputy Secretary namely Ms. ishraqPromila Mitra of the General Administration department of the defendant had issued a letter F. No. CS DJ 351/20 3 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 41/1226/2016/GAD/Admn/Pt.File/6241. Vide the said letter, she had informed the plaintiff inter alia "...hence this is not a case of overpayment but it is a case of wrong drawal of increments ..."
(j) Then, with effect from 30.01.2017 (relevant letter served by the defendant to the plaintiff on 31.01.2017 i.e. on the date of his retirement), the defendant alleged an over payment of Rs. 24,17,494/- with effect from 15.06.1984 and has withheld proximately the same amount of his dues for that purpose.
(k) Against the illegal withdrawals of plaintiff's said increments and consequent recovery, the plaintiff had filed an Original Application No. 755/2017, in Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. On 05.07.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (but without adjudicating upon most of the pleas and arguments which had been submitted by the plaintiff to it).
(l) Against the Order of the Tribunal, the plaintiff approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed his Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9759/2018.
(m) Against the Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the plaintiff filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15127-15128/2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP of the plaintiff vide Order dated 12.07.2019 with an observation that the plaintiff can represent about grievances other than that against withdrawal of the seven advance increments and CS DJ 351/20 4 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 consequential recovery. The plaintiff filed a Review Petition No. 2008- 2009/2019 against the said Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which too was dismissed (by circulation).
(n) In respect of withdrawal of the stated seven additional/advance increments and alleged recovery etc. from him, the plaintiff is taking recourse to separate Civil Suits under CPC, 1908 and SRA, 1963. [It may be noted that the plaintiff has filed a separate Suit in this regard having CS DJ No. 352/2020]
(o) Till date the defendant has not disbursed to the plaintiff his ordered retirement gratuity of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) and applicable interest thereupon from 01.05.2017 at the rate and yearly compounding thereof as applicable to All India Services general provident fund, both as per All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefits) Rules, 1958 which are framed under All India Services Act, 1951.
(p) The whole amount of the plaintiff's death-cum-retirement gratuity had accrued to him irrespective of his abovementioned seven additional increments of pay. On the same analogy that an employee's amount of leave encashment on retirement (which can be related to his ten year's service) can not be used to recover any amount of any overpayment made to said employee, no amount of the plaintiff's death cum retirement gratuity (which relates to his more than 32.5 years of service) can be withheld against any overpayment (actual/ hypothetical) alleged to have been made to an employee.
CS DJ 351/20 5 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
(q) The amounts claimed in the Suit are due to the plaintiff as per respective AIS Rules framed under the AIS Act, 1955, CCS (Pay) Rules & IAS Pay Rules etc. Accordingly, these amounts are in the nature of a debt against the defendant, covered under Order 37 CPC, 1908. It is the defendant's obligations to disburse the plaintiff's abovementioned due as all these amounts are legally recoverable by the plaintiff by way of the present suit under the provisions of CPC.
(r) In respect of retirement gratuity and interest thereupon it arose in favour of the plaintiff upon filing defendant's reply dated 25.10.2017 in Central Administrative Tribunal. In respect of his salary and increments dues including that relating to required fixation of his pay as per IAS Pay Rule, 2016, it arose in favour of the plaintiff first on 31.01.2017 when the plaintiff retired from the service without payment of his claimed salary dues.
(s) The plaintiff thus has filed the present suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 47,58,802/- along with further annually compounded interest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 at the rate of 15% per annum till the disbursement of all amount by the defendant to the plaintiff.
4. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC on 04.11.2020 for rejection of the plaint inter alia on the ground, that the present suit relates to service matter and as such the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred; that the present suit is related to an order dated 28.12.2016 (passed by the defendant) which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble CAT, Delhi (Court of first CS DJ 351/20 6 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 instance/competent Court as per L. Chandra Kumar Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India) in OA No. 755/2017 which was dismissed by order/judgment dated 05.07.2018; that the plaintiff challenged the Order dated 05.07.2018 passed in OA No. 755/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 9759/2018 which was dismissed; that the plaintiff preferred a review petition No. 98/2019 against the Writ Petition (C) No. 9759/2018 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; that the plaintiff then filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP No. 15127-15128/2019 which too was dismissed vide Order dated 12.07.2019 and then again preferred a review petition No. 2008-2009 against SLP No. 15127-15128/ 2019 which was also dismissed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the defendant in support of her submissions has relied on following judgments:-
(i) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
(ii) Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510
(iii) Prabhat Ranjan Deo vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.
decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.07.2020 in W.P.(C) 3334/2019
6. Plaintiff has raised many grounds in his reply for dismissing the aforesaid application of the defendant. However, the principal argument of the plaintiff before this Court is that admittedly the plaintiff earlier had raised these issues before the Hon'ble CAT, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet these issues remained un-adjudicated which shows that the issues are not considered by these forums as determinable by the CAT through an Original CS DJ 351/20 7 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 Application (OA). The plaintiff as such has filed the present Suit which, as per him, should be decided, as per provisions of CPC, 1908, by holding a full fledged trial after settling/ framing issues. I am reproducing the paras 4 to 9 of plaintiff's parawise reply (filed on 27.01.2021) to the aforesaid application of the defendant;
"4. It is denied that this Suit as such relates to service matter. In the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 or elsewhere, 'the recovery' and 'the interest' have not been defined as a service matter. These are pure financial/civil matters. It is admitted that the Original Application number 755/2017 was dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal Delhi, but it is denied that the Tribunal had passed any 'judgement' in the O.A. number 755/2017. It had passed only an 'Order', and neither the Defendant had opposed 'any components of the recovery' and 'the interest' parts of the O.A. nor said Order did adjudicate upon the 'recovery' and 'the interest'. Had the Tribunal treated these to be a service matter, it would have adjudicated upon it. In fact, The Tribunal had not even framed any issues. It had also not at all considered Memorandum of Arguments that had been filed by me, the Plaintiff, to it. Thus, the Tribunal did not act in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Also, the Tribunal is not a full-fledged civil Court; it is a 'Tribunal' and a 'Tribunal' is different from a 'Civil Court'. Also, the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 does not provide for an Appeal against the Tribunal's orders. A copy each of relevant two pages of the O.A. showing Relief sought from the Tribunal, Defendant's Counter Reply to the O.A., Memorandum of Arguments along with its initial Annexures AR-1 to AR-4 filed for the O.A., and the Order of the Tribunal upon the O.A. are CS DJ 351/20 8 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 annexed as Annexures PR-2, PR-3, PR-4 and PR-5 respectively. Judgement in case of L. Chandra Kumar's (its downloaded extracts annexed as Annexure PR-6), does not oust jurisdiction of this Court over this Suit for Recovery. Also, this Suit is based upon valid notifications, orders and judgements of competent authorities and competent Courts of India.
5. It is admitted that the W. P. (C) 9759 of 2018 was dismissed by High Court of Delhi, but this fact in isolation is misleading because neither the Tribunal nor the High Court has/had adjudicated upon the subject matter the 'recovery' including the interest. Also, it was a Writ Petition, scope of which is limited as compared to that of an Appeal, and the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 did not provide for an Appeal. A copy of the Order of the High Court of Delhi is annexed as Annexure PR-7. Also evidently, the Defendant has made a manipulation in ink in last line of its paragraph number 5 in quoting the observation of the High Court of Delhi.
Further about the observation of the Honourable High Court of Delhi about its impression as (manipulated in the Application) quoted by the Defendant, it is evident as well as stated that this observation is only its 'impression'; and the 'impression' is not its finding or a fact. Also, this observation is qualified by the words 'in the aforesaid light' and said 'light' is missing in this Application of the Defendant. Therefore, contents of this paragraph are denied to this extent.
6. It is admitted that the Review Petition (C) No. 98/2019 filed in respect of Order passed in W.P. (C) No. 9759/2018 was dismissed, but this fact in isolation is misleading because neither the Tribunal, nor the High Court had adjudicated upon 'the recovery' including the interest as I have asserted. Even the words 'recovery by the plaintiff (and the interest)' do not find a place CS DJ 351/20 9 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 therein. A copy of the Order of the High Court on the Review Petition is annexed as Annexure PR-8. Therefore, contents of this paragraph are denied to this extent.
7. It is admitted that the SLP(C) No. 15127-15128 was dismissed, but this fact in isolation is misleading because the Supreme Court of India also has not adjudicated upon the matter of 'the recovery along with the interest' on the pending disbursements of the same to me. A copy of the Order of the Supreme Court of India in the SLP(C) number 15127-15128 is annexed as Annexure PR-9. It is evident that the Supreme Court of India had ordered inter alia as -
"...it shall be open for the petitioner to represent the matter if he has any other grievance except the withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery..."
Also notably, it was a Special Leave Petition, scope of which is limited as compared to that of an Appeal, and the Supreme Court of India did not allow filing of the Appeal. Thus, contents of this paragraph are denied to this extent.
8. It is admitted that the Review Petition No. 2008-2009 of 2019 was dismissed (by circulation) by the Supreme Court of India, but this fact in isolation is misleading because the Supreme Court of India also had not adjudicated upon the subject matter of 'the recovery along with the interest'. Therefore, contents of this paragraph are denied to this extent. A copy of the Order of the Supreme Court of India in the Review Petition is annexed as Annexure PR-10.
9. It is denied that the issue of the recovery along with the interest claimed by me, the Plaintiff, has been adjudicated from the Central Administrative CS DJ 351/20 10 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 Tribunal to Honourable Supreme Court of India. In fact, no issues had been framed by any of the Tribunal and the two Courts."
7. The plaintiff has made this argument of his (as referred to by him in his reply to application), part of the plaint of the Suit as well. Para 16 of the plaint reads as under;
"16. The plaintiff had taken up these issues of gratuity and pay fixation as per IAS (Pay) Rules, 2007 & 2016 etc. with the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application No. 755/2017, in High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 9759/2018 and accordingly in S.L.P. (C) No. 15127-15128/2019 also.
The fact that the issues raised by the plaintiff remained non-adjudicated shows/implies that the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had considered the said issues as not to be adjudicated upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal."
8. Plaintiff in support of his arguments has relied on following judgments:-
(1) Akul Bhargava and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1376 (2) S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr. reported in 2003 (1) SCSLJ 136 (3) Geetaben Ratilal Patel vs. District Primary Education Officer, (2013) 7 SCC 182 (4) Union of India Vs. Rasila Ram & Ors (2001) 10 SCC 623 (5) Smt. Babli & Anr. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors (95 (2002)DLT 114 (DB) CS DJ 351/20 11 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (6) Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar Vs. State of Bombay & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal No. 206 of 1960 on 13.12.1962. (7) Dhulabhai & Ors Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anrs decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal No. 260-263 of 1967 on 05.04.1968.
(8) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranoji Rao Shinde & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A 1730 of 1966 on 21.03.1968. (9) State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 6771/2013 on 14.08.2013. (10) The state of Kerala & Ors Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair in SLP (Civil) No. 9425/1984 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 17.12.1984. (11) Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 689/2000 on 31.01.2000. (12) S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 21311 of 2005 on 09.01.2008. (13) D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. LRs. Vs. U.P Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7113/2014 on 01.08.2014.
(14) State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (whitewhaster) & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 11527 of 2014 on 18.12.2014. (15) Sabbir Hasan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 6357-6358 of 2019 on 16.08.2019 CS DJ 351/20 12 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (16) Akhil Dilli Prathimik Shikshak Sangh (Reg) & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. in LPA No. 158/2020 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.06.2020.
(17) Harish Rautela Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors. Decided by the Hob'ble High Court of Uttrakhand At Nanital in Writ petition NO. 179 of 2018 decided on 22.12.2020.
(18) Govt. of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Anr. Vs. Prem Nath Manchanda decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 9394/2017 on 11.12.2018.
(19) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Nand Lal Singh decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 5505/2012 on 04.09.2012. (20) Delhi Police Vs. Balwant Singh decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 1227/2012 on 13.03.2012. (21) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Bhagwat Swaroop decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 9326/2015 on 29.09.2015. (22) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. SK Srivastava decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 1186/2012 on 29.02.2012. (23) V.M Salgarocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax etc. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 657 of 1994 on 10.04.2000 (citation is 2000 (2) SCR 1169). (24) P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Vs. The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors. Etc. in Writ petition No. 9533-9537 of 2019 decided on 18.12.2019.
CS DJ 351/20 13 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (25) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 328 of 2005 on 12.01.2009.
(26) Milkhi Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA no. 1346 of 2010 on 08.10.2021. (27) Saleem Bahi Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2003 SC 759 (28) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 448 of 2004 on 23.01.2004.
(29) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 9519 of 2019 on 09.07.2020. (30) State of Punjab Vs. Anand Sarup Singh decided on 08.05.1967 AIR 1968 PH 485 (31) Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 1061-62 of 1998 on 25.02.2004, 2004(2) SCR 642 (32) Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. Vs. Smt. Salanga Bose & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 1848 of 2002 on 14.03.2022. (33) Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 4665 of 2021 on 09.08.2021. (34) Auduth Timblo Vs. Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 734/2016 on 09.02.2022. (35) Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 5862 of 2017 on 21.08.2017.
CS DJ 351/20 14 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (36) Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & Anr. Vs. Axis Bnk Ltd. & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 01.07.2019. (37) M.P. Medical Officers Association Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 5527 of 2022 on 26.08.2022.
(38) S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh in Writ Petition No. 10025-2005 on 18.03.2015.
(39) Hindustan Times Ltd. Vs. Compagnie International Pour Le decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Suit No. 2208/1995 on 21.11.2007.
(40) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Gurbaran Singh decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 2411 of 2019 on 01.03.2019. (41) Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 745 of 2007 on 13.02.2007. (42) State of M.P Vs. Mangilal Sharma decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.12.1997.
(43) Lajpat Rai Mehta Vs. Secretary of Government of Punjab, Depart of Irrigation & Power, Chandigarh decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 7309 of 2008 on 16.12.2008.
(44) The Secretary, Ministry of Works & Housing, Government of India Vs. Shri Mohinder Singh Jagdev & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.08.1996.
CS DJ 351/20 15 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (45) State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Krishan Dayal Sharma decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 27.08.1990.
(46) Sri Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. State of Tripura And Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 6080 of 1998 on 04.12.1998. (47) Municipal Corporation, Raipur Vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.04.1991.
(48) Haryana Vidyut, Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Anr.Vs. Gulshan Lal & Ors. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 3306 of 2009 on 06.05.2009.
(49) Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Ors decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 5720 of 2021 on 21.09.2021.
(50) Ramnarayan Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh decided by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 357/2016 on 06.03.2017.
(51) Kanti Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan And Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.07.2005.
(52) State of Punjab etc. Vs. Jangir Singh decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in RSA No. 361-2004 (O&M) on 21.12.2017. (53) The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs Baleshwar Singh & Anr. decided by the High Court of Jharkhand At Ranchi decided on 11.05.2006 in MANU/JH/0372/2006 (54) Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand decided by the High Court of Jharkhand decided on 11.10.2007.
CS DJ 351/20 16 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (55) The State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Bakhish Singh decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 08.09.1998 (56) Prabhudayal Birari Vs. M.P. Rajya Nagrik Aapurti Nigam Ltd decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 22.08.2000. (57) Dev Verma Son of Late Chauhal Vs. State of U.P decided by High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition no. 52123 of 2003 on 29.09.2005 MANU/UP/1419/2005 (58) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sohan Lal decided by Rajasthan High Court in CRP No. 623 of 1993 decided on 26.10.1993 MANU/RH/0389/1993.
(59) Smt. Archna Jain Vs. The Chief Secretary GNCTD and CMD Delhi Transport Ltd. decided by Central Administration Tribunal in O.A No. 4211/2012 on 05.03.2014.
(60) Krishan Prasad Gupta Vs. Controller, Printing & Stationery decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.10.1995. (61) State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Balkaran Singh decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18.10.2006.
(62) UCO Bank & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007 on 31.03.2008. (63) Maharshtra Land Development Corporation & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 2147-2148 of 2004 on 11.11.2010.
CS DJ 351/20 17 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 (64) Union of India and ors. Vs. The General Secy. Rail Mazdoor Union and Ors. decided by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4676/2007 on 02.01.2020.
(65) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar decided by the Ld. ADJ-2, KKD, Delhi in RCA No. 69/2019 on 26.10.2021. (66) Ramesh Gobindram (dead) through LRs Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 1182/2006 on 01.09.2010.
9. The rival contentions fall for consideration of this court.
10. A decision under Rule 11 to Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') normally proceeds on 'demurrer'. This means that the party objecting to the legal action assumes the truth of the matter alleged by the opposite party and sets up that it is insufficient in law to sustain the claim or there is some other defect on the face of the pleadings constituting a legal reason why the proceedings should not be allowed to proceed further. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or that the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements made in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement filed in the case. This is the underlying principle behind Order VII Rule 11 of the Code which applies when it appears from the reading of the plaint that it does not disclose a cause of action or that the suit is barred by any law.
11. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff was granted seven additional increments by the Daman and Diu administration on the basis of CS DJ 351/20 18 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 higher educational qualifications acquired by him. Subsequently, the defendant withdrew that seven additional increments granted to the plaintiff vide Office order No. 6240 dated 28.12.2016. Further, the defendant while alleging an over payment of Rs. 24,17,494/- (with effect from 15.06.1984) to the plaintiff, withheld approximately the same amount of his (plaintiff's) dues. Plaintiff as such has filed two Suits pending in this Court;
(i) Present Suit (CS DJ No. 351/2020) for recovery of amount (retirement gratuity etc.) withheld by defendant towards overpayment made to the plaintiff (payment as seven additional increments).
(ii) Another Suit (CS DJ No. 352/2020) for declaration and consequential relief including mandatory injunction. Prime prayer amongst many others (seeking 74 declarations and certain consequential reliefs) is regarding setting aside Office order No. 6240 dated 28.12.2016.
12. Admittedly, the plaintiff has challenged the Office order No. 6240 dated 28.12.2016 before the Hon'ble CAT, Hon'ble High Court, and contested upto Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Here, I would like to reproduce the judgment/ final order dated 23.01.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in W. P. (C) No. 9759/2018 (in extenso);
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 755/2017. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal primarily to assail the order No. 6240 dated 28.12.2016 passed by the respondent - GNCTD, whereby the seven advance increments granted CS DJ 351/20 19 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 to the petitioner were withdrawn and his pay was refixed with effect from 15.06.1994.
2. It appears that in the year 1999, the petitioner claimed additional increments on account of his clearing the qualification of ICWA.
3. To press his said claim, he preferred O.A. No. 591/ 2004 before the Tribunal wherein he sought the following reliefs:
"(i) to direct the respondent to give, within three months, the benefit of his seven advance increments to the applicant with effect from 1.1.1996 (the date of implementation of the 5th Pay Commission report), by keeping his seven advance increments intact in number also throughout his employment on the analogy of the judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Suresh Kumar Gupta, and the resultant Pay fixation since 1.1.1996 as the applicant was availing the benefit of the said seven advance increments intact with effect up to 31.12.1995;
(ii) to direct the respondents to award to the applicant all the benefits consequential in terms of the relief (i) above; and
(iii) to award reasonable interest and costs also in favour of the applicant."
4. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Application on 18.02.2005 and the operative part of the order reads as follows:
"9. As is apparent from the Office Memorandum that has even been issued, to which the Delhi High Court has referred to in details, necessarily the claim has to be considered on the touchstone of the fact as to whether acquiring the said higher qualification, the same CS DJ 351/20 20 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 would contribute to the efficiency of the said officer pertaining to the duties he is to discharge.
10. This question has yet not been considered by respondent no. 1. It is indeed for the applicant to show the nature of duties he is performing as to how the higher qualification acquired by him would improve his efficiency and performance. At this stage, therefore, it would be improper for this Tribunal to express much on this count because sufficient material does not appear to be on the record.
11. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Original Application directing respondent no. 1 to consider the claim of the applicant in light of the aforesaid and take a conscious decision preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order." (emphasis supplied)
5. The said issue was then considered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The views/ comments of the Government of NCT of Delhi were also called for, and vide communication dated 21.04.2004, the Government of NCT of Delhi stated as follows:
"It is stated that generally these qualifications of ICWA/ CS are helpful in discharging higher duties in a department dealing in the accountancy or audit work. In the instant case, Shri Mohan Lal was posted as Project Director (DRDA/DUDA), Daman at the time of sanctioning of advance increments and there seems to be no direct correlation between the qualification acquired by him and the duties discharged by him at that time. The officer is presently posted in Sales Tax Department as Dy. Commissioner (vigilance) and there also seems no direct linkage between the qualification acquired by the CS DJ 351/20 21 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 officer and the duties being discharged by him in his present post. Further the service of the officer is transferable amongst the segments of the Cadre, since the officer belongs to the DANI Civil Service. As such, it would not be appropriate to justify the usefulness of the higher qualification acquired by the officer, keeping in view the Generalist/ Administrative nature of duties discharged by the Members of DANICS cadre". (emphasis supplied)
6. The views of the DOP&T were also called for and DOP&T observed as follows:
"(i) Although Shri Mohan Lal has claimed that his qualification would be useful to the Govt. However, as pointed out by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, there is no correlation between the duties and responsibilities to be discharged by a DANICS officer and the Company Secretary-ship/ ICWA qualifications, as the DANICS officers are required to perform generalist factions under the Govt.
(ii)The minimum qualification required for appointment to the Entry Grade of DANICS as per the Recruitment Rules is Graduation;
(iii) Neither the rules governing the conditions of service for the DANICS nor the scheme of Civil Services Examination, through which direct recruitment to DANICS was/ is being made, provide for any additional benefit for possessing higher qualification; and
(iv) The various court judgements/ precedents quoted by Shri Mohan Lal cannot be applied in his case, as those are case specific and would not have general applicability in absence of specific rules in this regard." (emphasis supplied) CS DJ 351/20 22 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
7. In the light of the aforesaid, the Government of India regretted its inability to accede to the request of the petitioner for keeping his seven advance increments intact, in number, throughout his employment and resultant pay fixation etc. since 01.01.1996.
8. Firstly, we may observe that the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the Government of India was premised on the comments obtained from the Government of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 21.04.2004. Pertinently, this order was never assailed by the petitioner and he accepted the same.
9. It appears that while the petitioner was serving as Director PFA, and enjoying all powers of HOD, one of his subordinates was required to officiate as HOD on a particular day i.e. 15.05.2009. On that day, an order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the officiating HOD, whereby he was granted the seven advance increments and his pay was, accordingly, fixed.
10. A perusal of the order dated 15.05.2009 shows that there is not a whisper in the said order, of the order passed by the Government of India on 04.08.2005. It does not even make a reference to the communication dated 21.04.2004 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi, which has been extracted in the order dated 04.08.2005.
11. Dehorse the aforesaid decisions taken by the Government of India and the Government of NCT of Delhi, the order dated 15.05.2009 granted the reliefs sought by the petitioner, which was passed by an officer subordinate to the petitioner, who occupied the position of HOD only on the day that the order was passed.
CS DJ 351/20 23 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
12. It appears that the petitioner was about to retire when the aforesaid irregularity came to light and, consequently, the Government of NCT of Delhi passed the order dated 28.12.2016.
13. In the aforesaid light, the Tribunal has found no merit in the petitioner's Original Application. The finding returned by the Tribunal reads as follows:
"9. It is a matter of record that the applicant was granted seven advance increments by the Daman and Diu Administration on the basis of higher educational qualifications acquired by him. In fact, the increments have also become part of his pay. The respondents also did not withdraw the increments on their own. It is the applicant who has to blame himself for the subsequent events. The applicant wanted the benefit of seven increments to be enhanced on the basis of the revised pay scale of 5th CPC, while keeping the number of increments intact. In other words, he wanted the benefit of this PRC with reference to each of the seven increments, and not on the prevalent pay scale. When the same did not find favour with the administration, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 591/2004. It is here, that the question as to whether the grant of increments to the applicant on the basis of higher educational qualifications was justified or not in terms of the relevant Fundamental Rules, was examined. Thus, the question as to whether the applicant was entitled for the seven increments was left open to be considered afresh, though the sanction of such increments had taken place more than a decade, before the Tribunal passed the order.
CS DJ 351/20 24 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
10. In compliance with the direction issued by this Tribunal, the MHA passed order dated 04.08.2005. After discussing various aspects of the matter, the MHA took the view as under:-
"5. And whereas the matter was examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training and it was noted that-
(i) Although Shri Mohan Lal has claimed that his qualification would be useful to the Govt. However, as pointed out by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, there is no correlation between the duties and responsibilities to be discharged by a DANICS officer and the Company Secretaryship/ICWA qualifications, as the DANICS officers are required to perform generalist functions under the Govt.;
(ii) The minimum qualification required for appointment to the Entry Grade of DANICS as per the Recruitment Rules is Graduation;
(iii) Neither the rules governing the conditions of service for the DANICS nor the scheme of Civil Services Examination through which direct recruitment to DANICS was/is being made, provide for any additional benefit for possessing higher qualification; and
(iv) The various court judgments/precedents quoted by Shri Mohan Lal cannot be applied in his case, as those are case specific and would not have general applicability in absence of specific rules in this regard."
11. It needs to be mentioned here that not being aware of this development, the applicant filed a Misc. Application before this CS DJ 351/20 25 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 Tribunal for execution and once the order dated 04.08.2005 was placed before the Tribunal, it was opined that there is satisfactory execution and it was left open to the applicant to prosecute the respondents vis-àvis the order dated 04.08.2005. However, the applicant did not choose to challenge the order dated 04.08.2005.
12. Once the highest authority in the Administration has taken the view that the applicant is not entitled for increments, it is natural that the respondent which is the executing authority takes note of the same. It is no doubt true that there was lapse of time between these two events. Once the applicant has permitted the order dated 04.08.2005 to become final, he has no alternative but to face the consequences that would flow from it. We do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order. The OA is accordingly dismissed. A prayer is made by the applicant, in the context of recovery of the amount referable to the increments that was withdrawn from him. The amount is no doubt huge and we would have certainly examined the feasibility of staying the recovery of arrears. However, the record discloses that the applicant himself was instrumental in the benefit of increments being continued to him even after the order dated 04.08.2005 was passed. Our attention was invited to some of the proceedings. The amount is said to have been recovered already. The order dated 04.08.2005 has assumed finality and we cannot take away the consequences thereof, at this length of time."
14. In the aforesaid light, we find absolutely no merit in the petition. In fact, one gets the impression that the petitioner took undue advantage of the CS DJ 351/20 26 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 situation when he was serving as Director, and procured the order in his favour from the acting HOD, who was, otherwise, his subordinate." (Underlined by me)
14. When the aforesaid judgment/ final order dated 23.01.2019 was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) number 15127-15128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition with the observation (vide Order dated 12.07.2019);
"The special leave petitions are dismissed.
We, however, observe that it shall be open for the petitioner to represent the matter if he has any other grievance except the withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery..."
15. So, when the plaintiff approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP, Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP with an observation that ...it shall be open for the petitioner to represent the matter if he has any other grievance except the withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery...In a sense, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a liberty to the plaintiff to represent the matter if he has any other grievance other than withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery.
16. However, it appears that the plaintiff is re-agitating the same issues (which the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held barred) viz. challenging the withdrawal of the seven advance increments [in another Suit (CS DJ No. 352/2020) by seeking setting aside of Office order No. 6240 dated 28.12.2016 (seeking 74 declarations and certain consequential reliefs)], and consequential CS DJ 351/20 27 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 recovery by way of present Suit. The plaintiff though has provided a justification for the same in para 16 of the plaint.
17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr, AIR 2000 SC 2587, has dealt with the effect of dismissal of a SLP. Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded;
(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. First stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and special leave petition is converted into an appeal.
(iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special CS DJ 351/20 28 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before Supreme Court the jurisdiction CS DJ 351/20 29 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by Sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C.
(Underlined by me)
18. Let us examine the Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) number 15127-15128 in light of the above-noted exposition of law.
19. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the special leave petition of the plaintiff allowed him to represent the matter if he has any other grievance other than the withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery. In other words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically barred the plaintiff to re-agitate the issues regarding withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery.
20. If viewed in light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Supra, it can be said that the doctrine of merger would not apply. Even the doctrine of res judicata would not apply. However, the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that it shall be open for the petitioner to represent the matter if he has any other grievance except the withdrawal of the seven advance increments and consequential recovery would definitely bind the parties (i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant) and also to this Court by way of judicial discipline, the Hon'ble Supreme Court being the apex court of the country.
21. This Court accordingly holds that since the plaintiff by way of present Suit, in essence, is re-agitating the same cause, Suit of the plaintiff is barred by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) number 15127-15128 (dated 12.07.2019) (in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CS DJ 351/20 30 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 Kunhayammed Supra). Merely because the decision did not come in favour of the plaintiff up till Hon'ble Supreme Court, (this) does not mean that the dispute was not determinable by the CAT through an Original Application (OA) as now alleged by the plaintiff in para 16 of the plaint.
22. Admittedly, the petitioner was a member of the All India Service, which is covered under Section 14(1)(b)(i) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Section 14(1)(b)(i) of the Act provides that, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable immediately before that day, by all Courts in relation to all service matters concerning a member of any All India Service. Section 3(q) of the Act defines 'Service Matters' as all matters relating to conditions of a service and includes matters with respect to remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits, tenure, confirmation, seniority, promotion etc.
23. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff, at the first instance, submitted himself, to the jurisdiction of the CAT and subsequently challenged its order upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
24. The main argument of the plaintiff (justification for filing present Civil Suit as pleaded in the plaint), as already noted, is that as the matter remained un- adjudicated despite being heard by/ before the Hon'ble CAT, Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, (it) signifies that the matter was not considered by these forums as determinable by the CAT through an OA, and CS DJ 351/20 31 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 as such the matter should be decided by a Civil Court, as per provisions of CPC, 1908, by holding a full fledged trial after settling/ framing issues.
25. The justification provided by the plaintiff is based on assumption which in the considered view of this court is having no basis. From perusal of records, it is apparent neither the Hon'ble CAT nor the Hon'ble High Court nor the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the matter is not within the purview of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Both the Hon'ble CAT and Hon'ble High Court decided the matter on merits.
26. Very recently, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in 'Arun Kumar Gupta V/s Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Chemical And Fertilizer Deptt. Chemical Petro Chemical And Ors'; WRIT - A No. - 3089 of 2024 (decided on 24.09.2024) [Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC- LKO:68607-DB] held that the Central Administrative Tribunal is a substitute for a Civil Court while adjudicating Service disputes. The relevant observations are;
5) No doubt, the Tribunals constituted under the Act, 1985 have certain powers analogous to the High Court, such as to decide the vires of an enactment, except the Act, 1985 under which they have been constituted, but at the same time, they are also supposed to act as Courts or Tribunals of first instance so as to thrash out findings of fact also. It is a misconception, that Tribunals while exercising the powers under the Act, 1985 in fact exercise powers of judicial review, stricto sensu, as the High Court does under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not so. This would be evident from the provisions of the Act, 1985 itself. We may in this regard refer to Section 4 of CS DJ 351/20 32 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 the Act, 1985, which provides for establishment of an Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such Tribunal, by or under the Act, 1985. The Tribunal consists of judicial and administrative members, both. The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunals have been dealt with in Chapter III of the Act, 1985. Section 14 deals with Central Administrative Tribunal, whereas Section 15 deals with State Administrative Tribunals, constituted under the Act, 1985. Section 22 deals with powers and procedure of Tribunals and it reads as under:-
"22. Procedure and Powers of Tribunals - (1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [5 of 1908], but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. (2) A Tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing oral arguments, if any, allowed by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.
(3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of holding any inquiry, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [5 of 1908], while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely, --
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
CS DJ 351/20 33 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [1 of 1872], requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and
(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government."
6) Although, the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but it is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act, 1985. Sub-section 3 of the Section 22 clearly provides that the Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, in respect of matters already quoted hereinabove.
7) The very vesting of such powers of summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on affidavits; requisitioning any public record or document, or copy of such record or document from any office subject to the provisions mentioned therein; issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents, as are exercised by a Civil Court CS DJ 351/20 34 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 while trying a suit, which is a court of first instance, it is evident, that the Tribunal while adjudicating a service dispute is empowered to enter into questions of fact, and decide factual issues based on evidence, as is done by the Civil Court, even though not bound by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In fact, the Tribunal is a substitute for the Civil Court. Prior to constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act, 1985, the remedy was before the Civil Court, and therefore, an alternative forum has been provided under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. It can take evidence, evaluate it and record findings of fact. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the other hand, do not permit such an exercise. The proceedings of the High Court under Article 226 are summary proceedings, whereas the proceedings of the Tribunal, even though they are required to be completed expeditiously, are not the same as the High Court in this sense. The Tribunal has been vested with powers to examine questions of fact, to take evidence and decide factual issues based thereon. This aspect has also been considered by a Seven Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein it has been observed in Paragraph 93 -
"We may add that the Tribunal 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." However, for the benefit of the Tribunal, the entire Paragraph 93 is quoted hereinbelow:-
"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 CS DJ 351/20 35 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional setup, 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."
(Underlined by me) CS DJ 351/20 36 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
27. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Prabhat Ranjan Deo Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.; MANU/DE/1370/2020, held;
"16. It is clear that after the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, this Court cannot entertain the present petition and remedy of the Petitioner lies only before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The principles laid down in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) are binding on this Court in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that alternate remedy cannot be a bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reading of the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Section 14(1) of the Act makes it clear, in the opinion of this Court, that in relation to service matters covered under the Act, there is an ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court as a Court of 'first instance' and the Tribunal is not an 'alternative', but is the 'only' Forum available to the Petitioner. It is neither a matter of 'choice' for the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal, nor is it a matter of discretion with this Court to entertain the petition."
(Underlined by me)
28. Plaintiff has relied on a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in Akul Bhargava Supra. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in another decision passed in W.P. (C) 10134/2024 titled 'Vinay V/s Union Of India & Anr.' (decided on 30 August, 2024), MANU/DE/6276/2024 however noted;
"25...Pertinent it is to mention that in one case in Akul Bhargava and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1376, learned Single Judge of this Court had entertained the writ petition on CS DJ 351/20 37 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025 the ground that there was an evident malaise in the selection process and where the Court finds that the selection mechanism is being impeded, it cannot turn a blind eye to the same and interference by a Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is warranted. The decision was upheld by the Division Bench but in an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan being Civil Appeal No.2553/2022, the Supreme Court observed that the view of the High Court was difficult to sustain since the first designated forum was the Central Administrative Tribunal..."
29. Plaintiff has relied on several other judgments. A close scrutiny of the facts and the controversy involved in the judgments relied on by the plaintiff would show that they were decided on different factual matrices and are distinguishable on facts.
30. This Court as such is of view that even otherwise this Court has no 'subject matter' jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit. When the subject-matter of the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the plaint has to be rejected (Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Asif Ahmedally Porbunderwalla V/s Mrs. Daulat Akbarali Porbandarwala, (2013) SCC OnLine Bom 1099).
31. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, plaint is hereby rejected as Suit of the plaintiff is barred by the decision (dated 12.07.2019) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) number 15127-15128, and also for a reason that this Court has no 'subject-matter' jurisdiction to entertain the same. Application of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 CPC, 1908, filed on 04.11.2020 is accordingly disposed of.
32. No order as to cost.
CS DJ 351/20 38 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025
33. Let the decree sheet be prepared and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on this 24th day of April, 2025. This Order consists of 39 signed pages.
(Abhishek Srivastava) Distt. Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA Date:
2025.04.24 14:57:04 +0530 CS DJ 351/20 39 of 39 Mohan Lal Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi through Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi Order dated 24.04.2025