High CourtsDivision Bench(2025) 08 DEL CK 1422

Gaya Prasad vs Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 8 August 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
C. Hari Shankar, J · Amit Sharma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
REVIEW PET. 1/2025 in W.P.(C) 9082/2024

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

13 paragraphs · 264 words

C. Hari Shankar, J.

REVIEW PET. 1/2025

1.

This review petition seeks review of order dated 20 November 2024, whereby we dismissed WP(C) 9082/2024.

2.

WP(C) 9082/2024 was, in turn, directed against order dated 8 March 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1.

3.

We may note, by the said order, the Tribunal adjudicated two Miscellaneous Applications filed by the petitioner, i.e. MA 619/2024 and MA 167/2023.

4.

In both these MAs, the petitioner had, inter alia, prayed for an immediate stay of grant of Non-Functional Selection Grade2 in the Junior Administrative Grade of ITS Group A Officers, who were juniors to the applicant. In MA 167/2023, additionally, the petitioner sought institution of disciplinary proceedings against Shri Mahesh Shukla, Member (Services), Shri Sunil Prohit, DDG (Personnel) and Director (Staff) Department of Telecom.

5.

None of these persons including the persons regarding whom the petitioner sought stay of grant of NFSG, were impleaded by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

6.

We, therefore, opined, in our order, that the order passed by the Tribunal could not be faulted and dismissed the petition.

7.

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that it was not necessary to implead the juniors as he has not sought any challenge to their promotion.

8.

We fail to understand the submission. When the specific prayer was to stay the grant of NFSG to his juniors, it is but obvious that the juniors had to be made parties.

9.

No case arises for us to review our order dated 20 November 2024.

10.

The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

Footnotes

  1. 1.“Tribunal” hereinafter
  2. 2.“NFSG” hereinafter