Delhi High Court - Orders
Vivek Tripathi vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2239/2026 & CM APPL. 10804-10805/2026
VIVEK TRIPATHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla and Mr.
Manish Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with Ms.
Kavya Shukla and Mr. Vineet Negi,
Advocates and Ms. Pooja Kumari,
GP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.02.2026 CM APPL. 10804/2026 (seeking exemption from filing copies of annexures)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2239/2026
4. This writ petition, inter alia, seeks a direction to the Respondents to grant the Petitioner promotion from Grade A-VIII to A-IX and thereafter to A-X, along with consequential pay, pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits, duly re-fixed and recomputed on the basis of such promotions.
5. The Petitioner was appointed as C-DOT Executive (Administrative) in 1992 with Respondent No. 2/Centre for Development of Telematics,1 claimed to be an autonomous telecom R&D centre under the Department of 1 "C-DOT"
This is a digitally signed order.
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 18/02/2026 at 20:37:36 Telecommunications, Government of India. It is contended that the said body is registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is, therefore, not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. The Petitioner's grievance pertains to denial of promotion from Grade A-VIII to A-IX and from Grade A-IX to A-X, allegedly due during the period 2003 to 2008. It is submitted that although the Petitioner was placed under suspension during the said period on account of a disciplinary enquiry, he was subsequently reinstated and the suspension period was regularised for all purposes. According to the Petitioner, he could not have been denied the time-bound promotions falling due in that period. It is further asserted that the Petitioner submitted various representations in this regard; however, the Respondents failed to address the material aspect of reinstatement and rejected his claim on other grounds.
7. Issue notice. Mr. Nishant Gautam, counsel for Respondent No. 1, accepts notice.
8. Counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
9. Issue notice to Respondents No. 2, by all permissible modes, upon filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
10. Re-notify on 16th July, 2026.
SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/hc This is a digitally signed order.
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 18/02/2026 at 20:37:36