High CourtsDivision Bench(2025) 04 DEL CK 2448

Ch B N Chowdary vs Union Of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 24 April 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Navin Chawla, J · Renu Bhatnagar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 5240/2025 & CM APPL. 23843/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 283 words

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:

“ 1. This Hon’ble Court may graciously quash the final order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.No.1054/2025 dated 01.04.2025;

2.

Kindly quashed the entire proceedings by directing the Hon’ble Tribunal and respondents to take the decision-making process by releasing the full pay and allowances for equivalent to the Selection Grade;

3.

Pass, such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice.”

2.

The petitioner had approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by way of Original Application No. 1054/2025 (O.A.), seeking the following reliefs:

“ 8.1 To direct the respondents to release the full pay and allowances, granting the increments on due dates from 1st January, 2025 to 1st March, 2025.

8.2

To pass any other order as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal.”

3.

The learned Tribunal found that, leave alone the petitioner not being a member of any Government service, he had at best appeared to be an IAS aspirant who had undergone coaching and training at an Institute, and thus had no locus standi to claim any such relief from the Court. The learned Tribunal, therefore, found that the O.A. was not maintainable before it.

4.

We find that the contents of the present petition are completely vague and do not help us understand the grievance of the petitioner.

5.

We, therefore, are constrained to dismiss the same as being devoid of any merit.