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. areCS 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 placeCS 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 sameCS 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 theCS 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, theyCS 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 onCS 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
+0530CS 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
[ad_1]
Source link