W.P.(C)/11719/2026 of JASWANT SINGH & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on 14 August 2026

1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 16 July 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2766/2026.

2. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order in full thus:

“At the outset, the Registry has raised an objection that the present Original Application is premature on the ground that the statutory period of six months for consideration of the applicants' representation has not yet expired.

2. Having considered the objection raised by the Registry, we are of the view that the said objection is liable to be dispensed with. Accordingly, the objection is overruled and the Registry is directed to register the Original Application and assign a regular 1 “Tribunal” hereinafter

KUMAR

number to it.

3. The applicants have sought the following reliefs:

“(a) Direct the Respondents to forthwith convene a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider the candidature of the applicants for promotion to the post of Assistant Editor.

(b) Direct the all Respondents to grant consequential benefits to the applicants in case they found fit for promotion for the post of Assistant Editor.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the representations dated 11.06.2026 & 15.06.2026 submitted by the applicants are still pending consideration and that Applicant No.1 is due to retire on 30.09.2026. It is, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the pending representations.

5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the pending representation of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

7. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” (Emphasis supplied)

3. We have heard Mr. Shashwat Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vikram Jetly, learned CGSC for the respondents.

4. The only case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that there were substantive reliefs sought in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal, which have not been addressed in the impugned order.

KUMAR

5. We are truly surprised that such a writ petition was ever filed. The impugned order has been passed ad invitum. The Tribunal has granted, to the petitioner, exactly what learned Counsel for the petitioner sought during oral arguments in Court. The OA has been disposed of, in the manner suggested by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. This writ petition is, therefore, merely in the nature of a shot in the dark.

7. We would have been inclined to award costs in this matter. However, as we are not issuing notice in the case, we refrain from doing so.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J

VINOD KUMAR, J

AUGUST 14, 2026/AR

KUMAR