Ajab Singh & Ors. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Ajab Singh & Ors. and Thanglunmang Simte & Ors., filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. They were aggrieved by the delay in the grant of interim relief by the learned Tribunal concerning promotions to the post of Superintendent in Central GST. The petitioners sought intervention from the High Court to ensure that their prayer for interim relief was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had listed the Original Applications (O.A.s) for the consideration of interim relief on November 28, 2025. The petitions were filed to expedite or ensure the consideration of this interim relief.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it would be appropriate to request the learned Tribunal to consider the prayer for interim relief sought by the petitioners on the date it had already listed the matter, which was November 28, 2025. The Court was of the opinion that since the Tribunal had scheduled a specific date for the consideration of interim relief, it was best to allow the Tribunal to proceed with its scheduled hearing. The Court also stated that if the parties were aggrieved by any order passed by the Tribunal, they would be at liberty to avail of their remedies in accordance with the law. The order passed by the High Court was not to affect any such future remedies. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally allow subordinate judicial forums, like Tribunals, to consider matters within their jurisdiction, especially when specific dates for hearings have been fixed, and direct intervention should be exercised cautiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should intervene to direct the Tribunal to grant interim relief concerning promotions to the post of Superintendent in Central GST, given that the Tribunal has already listed the matter for consideration of interim relief on a specific date? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners sought the High Court's intervention to ensure that their prayer for interim relief against promotions being made to the post of Superintendent in Central GST was considered by the Tribunal. They were concerned about the delay or the outcome of the interim relief application before the Tribunal. Revenue/State's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents (Union of India & Ors.) in the provided judgment excerpt.