Union Of INDIA & Ors. vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.

Facts

The Union of India (UOI) filed two writ petitions, W.P.(C) 2554/2024 and W.P.(C) 2800/2024, challenging orders dated 15.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in C.P. No. 34/2024. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 2800/2024 claimed to have been treated as senior to private respondents since 2018, with their promotions occurring on 12.01.2024. However, an order dated 23.02.2024 from the Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST, Delhi Zone, placed the promotion order in abeyance. The respondents denied being treated as juniors. The High Court noted that the UOI had complied with the direction under the impugned CAT order.

Held

The Court noted that the Union of India had complied with the direction under the impugned CAT order by placing the promotion order dated 12.01.2024 in abeyance until further orders via an order dated 23.02.2024. Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petitions further. However, acknowledging the plea of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2800/2024 regarding their claimed seniority and the impact of the abeyance order on their promotions, the Court directed the CAT to expeditiously decide O.A. No. 939/2023, including any preliminary objections raised by the petitioners, within three weeks. The Court emphasized that the CAT should proceed without granting any adjournments, given the urgency and the fact that the petitioners' promotions were put on hold. The Court refrained from delving into the seniority dispute at this stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions filed by the Union of India under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are maintainable to assail the orders dated 15.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in C.P. No. 34/2024. The petitioners argued that the CAT's orders were assailed. The respondents' arguments on this issue are not recorded. 2. Whether the promotion order dated 12.01.2024, which was subsequently kept in abeyance by an order dated 23.02.2024, should be decided expeditiously, considering the petitioners' claim of seniority from 2018 and the respondents' denial of being treated as juniors. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 2800/2024 contended that their fate should not be left to the respondents, who allegedly treated them as juniors in seniority lists from 2018 to 2023. The respondents denied this claim. The Court refrained from delving into this aspect at this stage.