IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
1. NOTICE OF MOTION
2. URGENT HEARING APPLICATION
3. COURT FEES
4. MEMO OF PARTIES
5. SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
6. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA SEEKING
ISSUANCE OF APPROPRAITE WRIT(S)/
ORDER(S)/ DIRECTION(S) IN NATURE OF
CERTIORARI THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2024
PASSED BY THE LD. CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL
BENCH, NEW DELHI IN O.A. NO. 197 OF 2020
TITLED “SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.” ALONGWITH
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.
7. ANNEXURE P-1:
COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2024
PASSED BY THE LD. CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL
 BENCH, NEW DELHI IN O.A. NO. 197 OF 2020
TITLED “SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.”
8. ANNEXURE P-2:
COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 197 OF 2020 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN BEFORE THE
LD. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
9. ANNEXURE P-3:
COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS IN O.A.
NO. 197 OF 2020.
10. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE ORDER
DATED 18.09.2024 ALONGWITH SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVIT.
11. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPIES OF THE ORDERS AND DOCUMENTS
ALONGWITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.
12. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
EXEMPTION FROM FILING CLEAR/TYPED
COPIES OF DIM DOCUMENTS AND
EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL
COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS.
13. CERTIFICATE
14. VAKALATNAMA
15. PROOF OF SERVICE
Place: New Delhi
Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
Chamber No.29
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Mobile No. 9643121390
E-Mail: hpathakl95l@gmail.com
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

URGENT APPLICATION

To,
The Deputy Registrar
Delhi High Court
New Delhi

Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying Writ Petition as an urgent one as per the
Delhi High Court Rules. The urgency in the captioned matter is with respect to
the Order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, for which a prayer seeking a stay of the
impugned Order has also been preferred.

Place: New Delhi

Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION

Sir,
Kindly take notice that the present Writ Petition is likely to be listed on
______ or any date thereafter before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. It is
therefore, requested that you may kindly enter your appearance on the said
date.

Place: New Delhi

Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

COURT FEES
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & I.T.
DAK BHAWAN, ASHOKA ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001 …PETITIONER NO. 1

2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110001 …PETITIONER NO. 2

3. DIRECTOR, POSTAL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110001 …PETITIONER NO. 3
 VERSUS

1. NARESH KUMAR
S/o. SH. BAL KISHAN
R/o. 285/16, GANDHI NAGAR, GANAUR
DIST. SONEPAT, HARYANA
…RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. SUNIL KUMAR
S/o. SH. RATAN SINGH JAIN
R/o. E-77, MANSORAVAR PARK,
SHAHDARA, DELHI-110032
…RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. RAJINDER PRASAD
S/o. SH. SHANKAR LAL
R/o. B-23, GALI NO. 3
SHIV VIHAR, PHASE-1, KARAWAL NAGAR
DELHI-110094
…RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. MOTILAL
S/o. SH. ANANDI LAL
R/o. C-2/81A, BRIJPURI
DELHI-110094
…RESPONDENT NO. 4

5. AVANISH KUMAR
 S/o. SH. BHIKHARI LAL
R/o. K-541, GAUTAM VIHAR
WEST GHONDA, DELHI-110053
…RESPONDENT NO. 5

6. SHANNO DEVI BHUTANI

W/o. SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHUTANI
R/o. 73C, NANDWANI NAGAR
SONEPAT, HARYANA
…RESPONDENT NO. 6

New Delhi
Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
Chamber No.29
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Mobile No. 9643121390
E-Mail: hpathakl95l@gmail.com
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present Writ Petition impugns the Order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the
Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
[“Tribunal”] in O.A. 197 of 2020, titled “Shri Naresh Kumar & Ors. versus
Union of India & Ors.” wherein the Ld. Tribunal has allowed the Original
Application [“O.A.”] by setting aside the order dated 20.08.2019. The
Petitioners herein vide orders dated 20.08.2019 had rejected the
representations preferred by the Respondents seeking the benefit of service as
Reserved Trained Pool employees.

The Respondents herein prayed for quashing and setting aside of the orders
dated 20.08.2019 and a further direction to the Petitioners “to take into
consideration the services rendered by each of applicant under Reserved
Trained Pool as referred in para 4.2 of the OA as a regular service and
consider all career prospects of the applicants based upon the aforesaid RTP
service as regular service and award all consequential benefits”
The Ld. Tribunal vide impugned Order has allowed the O.A. by placing
reliance on the order dated 29.08.2024 passed in O.A. 823 of 2020, titled “Sh.
Dheeraj Pal & Ors. versus Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication
& IT & Ors.” as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17400 of 2016. In terms
of the impugned Order, it has been directed that the duration of the
Respondents’ service in the Reserved Trained Pool be considered as a regular
service along with “all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including
upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable”

The impugned Order is erroneous and, therefore, is liable to be set aside by

this Hon’ble Court. The impugned Order has been passed without considering
the facts and circumstances in the present case, on the contrary, the Ld.
Tribunal has solely granted relief based on parity. It is further submitted the
Respondents were in service under the Reserved Trained Pool from 1984 to
1987 and only preferred the O.A. in the year 2020. The delay in preferring the
said O.A. is unexplained by the Respondents. Thus, the impugned Order has
been passed with glaring infirmity and is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble
Court.

DATES EVENTS
1980 The Reserved Training Pool Scheme [“RTP Scheme”]
was introduced for Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant in
the postal and RMS Divisions with a view to ensure
smooth flow of work. The said Scheme was recruited
candidates as a standby, over and above the vacancies
 announced at the time of recruitment. The Scheme also did
not provide for counting the RTP serany automatic
absorption of candidates whereby a panel of servicemen
was retained who would not be covered under the number
of vacancies declared for regular appointment as Postal
Assistant/ Sorting Assistant. As per requirement, selected
candidate(s) was paid on hourly basis to meet the short
term needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority
for absorption against vacancies.
1983 RTP personnel were offered to opt for serving Army Postal
Services [“APS”]. The candidates deputed to APS were
eligible to get benefits of regular appointment in the civil
post from the date of their appointment on regular basis.
1984-1989 Respondents (on different dates) joined the posts of Postal
Assistant under the RTP. The Respondents were
subsequently regularized, without counting the service
rendered under RTP.
04.03.1986 RTP Scheme was abolished.
2008 Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme was
introduced by the Government of India.
12.07.2019 Respondent No. 1 made a representation “for extending the
benefits in terms of interim order dated 10-03-2017 in
WPMP No. 21403/2016 in WP No. /2016 of Hon’ble
High of Judicature of Hyderabad- case of RTP employees”
20.08.2019 Petitioner No. 2 rejected the representations preferred by
the Respondents citing that the relief granted by the
 Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is
“case specific as such order of Hon’able High Court
cannot be extended to others.”
20.01.2020 Respondents filed O.A. praying for quashing and setting of
the communications before the Ld. Tribunal.
18.09.20204 The Ld. Tribunal erroneously allowed the Respondents’
O.A. and directed the Petitioners herein to grant all
consequential benefits including upgradation under the
MACP Scheme to the Respondents.
___.01.2025 Hence, the present Writ Petition.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA PRAYING FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S)/
ORDER(S)/ DIRECTION(S) IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI
THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
18.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LD. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI IN O.A. NO. 197 OF
2020 TITLED “SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.”
To,
The Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and
other Companion Judges of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
The humble petition on behalf
of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is being preferred by the Petitioner praying for issuance of writ in
the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned Order dated
18.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal Principal
Bench, New Delhi [“Ld. Tribunal”] in O.A. No. 197 of 2020 titled
“Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.”. A copy of
the impugned Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Tribunal in
O.A. no. 197 of 2020 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1. A copy
of the O.A. No. 197 of 2020 filed by the Respondents, along with all the
annexures is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2 (COLLY.). A
copy of the Counter Affidavit/ Reply filed on behalf of the Petitioners
herein is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3.

2. That the Petitioner No. 1 herein is the Union of India through the
Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and
Information & Technology. The Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Post
Master General, Department of Posts and the Petitioner No. 3 is the
Director, Postal Services, Department of Posts.

3. That the Respondents, Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sh.
Rajinder Prasad, Sh. Moti Lal, Sh. Avanish Kumar, and Mrs. Shanno
Devi Bhutani were appointed under the Reserved Training Pool Scheme
[“RTP Scheme”] as temporary Short Duty Postal Assistants on various
dates between 1984 to 1989. The Respondents thereafter underwent
practical and theoretical training followed by their appointment. The
Respondents’ service was thereafter regularized between 1989-1990.
4. That for adjudication of the present writ petition, it is submitted that Sh.
Naresh Kumar and five (05) were appointed under the RTP Scheme as
temporary Short Duty Postal Assistants on various dates between 1983
to 1989. The Respondents also underwent practical and theoretical
training, followed by the aforesaid said appointment.

5. That the RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a
panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the
number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as Postal
Assistant/ Sorting Assistant. As per the requirement, the personnel was
detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short
time needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption
against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. However, the RTP
Scheme was abolished with effect from 04.03.1986.

6. Accordingly, the Respondents were confirmed as Sorting/ Postal

Assistants on various dates between 1989 and 1990 with the following
details:

S.No Name of the Candidate Date of Date of

. Appointment as confirmation as
Temporary Short Postal Assistant
Duty Assistant
under the RTP
Scheme
1. Naresh Kumar, APM, 30.04.1984 21.12.1987
GPO
2. Sunil Kumar Jain, April 1985 08.11.1989
LSG, PA, Delhi GPO
3. Rajinder Prasad, LSG, 27.12.1983 19.07.1989
PA, Delhi GPO
 4. Moti Lal, Ex-PA, May 1983 19.07.1989
Delhi GPO
5. Avanish Kumar, LSG, 27.12.1983 19.07.1989
PA, Delhi GPO
6. Shanno Devi Bhutani, 24.04.1984 18.10.1989
Ex-PA, Delhi GPO

7. The Respondents had thereafter made individual representations to the

Petitioners seeking benefit of their service as a temporary Short Postal
Assistant under RTP Scheme for the purpose of benefits in their regular
appointments. The said representations were preferred by the
Respondents between the years ____ to _____. The Respondents
essentially sought extension of benefits in terms of the interim order
dated 10.03.2017, passed in W.P. MP No. 21403/2016 by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

8. The representations of the Respondents were adjudicated by the

Petitioner No. 2 vide response dated 20.08.2019. The relevant portion of
the response is reproduced for ease of reference by this Hon’ble Court:

“This is regarding representation dated Nil regarding extending

the benefits in terms of interim order dated 10-03-2017 in WP MP No.
21403/2016 in WP No. 17400/2016 of Hon’able High Court of
jidicature at Hyderabad, case of RTP employees. Wherein you have
requested to extend the same benefits as was done/ implemented in
other cases.

It is to inform you that representations of eighteen officials of

Delhi sorting division on the subject were forwarded to directorate for
consideration and clarification. It has been intimated by the directorate
vide their Letter No. 18-12/2017/SPB-II dated 26-04-2019 wherein it
was decided by the directorate vide their Letter No. 18-12/2017/SPB-II
dated 21-02-2018 to implement the interim order dated 10-3-2017 of
 Hon’able High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in WP MP No.
21403 of 2016 in WP No. 17400 of 2016 and WP MP No. 21429 of
2016 in WP No. 17425 of 2016 to case specific as such order of
Hon’able High Court cannot be extended to others.

I have therefore considered your representation in view of

directorate clarification referred above and reject your representation
accordingly.”

9. That in terms of the aforesaid response, the Respondents were intimated

that the reliefs in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana could not be granted as the said interim
order has been passed on specific facts and circumstances of the case
before the said High Court. The representations were accordingly
rejected.

10. That the Respondents thereafter preferred an O.A. impugning the

response to their representations before the Ld. Tribunal seeking the
following reliefs:

“
(i) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 20.08.2019
(Annexure-A-1 Colly);
(ii) direct the respondents to take into consideration the service
rendered by each of the applicant under Reserved Trained Pool
as referred in para 4.2 of the OA as regular service and consider
all career prospects of the applicants based upon the aforesaid
RTP service as regular service and award all consequential
benefits;”

11. That the Ld. Tribunal vide the impugned Order has allowed the O.A.
preferred by the Respondents herein in the following terms:

“
 (i) The impugned order dated 20.08.2019 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court for State of Telangana at
Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in
present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits
flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme,
pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.”

12. That the impugned Order is erroneous and liable to be set aside by this
Hon’ble Court as the services rendered under the RTP Scheme by the
Respondents prior to their regular appointment in Postal Assistants
cannot be counted for grant of promotion under MACP in view of
Directorate Letter No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12.04.2012. The said
letter is already annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the
Petitioners herein before the Ld. Tribunal.

13. That the case at hand is different from the Respondents’ case places
their reliance on in the sense that the matter at hand concerns itself with
counting of the past services rendered by the Respondents herein from
1983-90 whereas, T.A 82/86 All India Postal Employees Union Vs.
Union of India of Jabalpur Bench discusses the regularization of RTP
Employees in the post of Postal Assistants with other benefits. It is also
pertinent to note that judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana on
which the Respondents places their reliance on, does not discuss the
merits of the case at all rather notes which judgment should be followed
with respect to their case.
14. That being aggrieved by the impugned Order, the Petitioners has no
other alternative remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court and assail
the Order on the following amongst other grounds:

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE the services rendered under the RTP Scheme by the

Respondents prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants
cannot be counted for grant of promotion under MACP in view of
Directorate Letter No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12.04.2012.

B. BECAUSE the matter was taken up by the Delhi Circle with the
Postal Directorate in respect of the applicants who had preferred
their representations for counting of services as RTP for MACP
purpose. The said representations were rejected vide the decision
conveyed by the Directorate by letter dated 20.08.2019.

C. BECAUSE it has rightly been conveyed to the Respondents that the

relief cannot be granted in parity to the interim order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad as the said order has been
passed in specific facts and circumstances.

D. BECAUSE issue of counting past service rendered from 1983 to

1989, cannot be granted while relying only on judgment passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No.17400 and 17425
of 2016, wherein the merits of the case were neither argued nor
discussed.
E. BECAUSE in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Karnataka & Ors. versus S.M. Katrayya & Ors.
(1996) 6 SCC 267, the Respondents cannot raise the issue in 2018/
2019 for counting of the service rendered by them in 1983 to 1989,
without explaining the delay.

F. BECAUSE it is settled law that any service which was rendered

prior to regular appointment in the cadre, cannot count for the
purpose of giving the benefit of MACP, pension and consequential
benefits because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible
cadre. Therefore, it is submitted that since the Respondents were not
rendering “service” in true sense between 1983-1989, the
Respondents shall not be entitled to the benefit of MACP, pension
and consequential benefits between 1983 and 1989.

G. BECAUSE the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of

India & Anr. versus K.N. Sivadas & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 65 squarely
covers the issue at hand.

H. BECAUSE in this Hon’ble Court in Paramedical Technical Staff

Welfare Association of MCD versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Anr., W.P. (C) 13239/2022 chose not to interfere with the policy
decision of the Respondent therein.

I. BECAUSE the Impugned Order is not a reasoned and speaking

order. The Ld. Tribunal has erred in not considering that the
 Respondents under the RTP Scheme were paid on hourly basis, and
were not regular appointees.

J. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Courts have consistently emphasized the

need for assigning reasons in support of the conclusion and while
doing so must deal with all the issues raised by the parties to the lis.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, made the following
observations on this issue in Union of India and Ors. versus Jai
Prakash Singh and Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 712 which reads as under:

“7. …Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest

consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its
reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of
its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue
of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's
judgment not sustainable. Reasons are live links between the mind
of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision
or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the
decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its
silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before
court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of
natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other
words, a speaking out. The 'inscrutable face of a sphinx' is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
performance.”
15. That the Petitioner seek kind liberty of this Hon’ble Court to add and
plead additional ground(s) during the course of submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.

16. That in view of the above, the Petitioners have no other equally
efficacious alternative remedy available to them except to prefer the
present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on
the facts, submissions and the grounds as mentioned above seeking
inter alia setting aside of the impugned Order and stay of the said order
till the present Petition is decided.

17. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition in respect of
the abovementioned for the similar reliefs either before this Hon’ble
Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, except the present
Petition before this Hon’ble Court.

18. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition as the impugned Order has been passed at New Delhi by the Ld.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

19. That the impugned Order passed by the Ld. Tribunal on 18.09.2024.
The said Order was intimated to the Petitioner on ______ and thereafter
the Petitioner sought a legal opinion from the concerned legal
department. A further opinion was also sought from the Department of
Legal Affairs, Union of India, which was received by the Petitioner on
_____. In light of the said opinions, the Petitioner deemed fit to impugn
the Order dated 18.09.2024and a request was thereafter processed to
nominate a government counsel to prepare the present Petition. The
 undersigned was nominated on ____ and a draft petition was shared
with the Petitioner department on 14.01.2025 for vetting and suggesting
changes, if any. The writ Petition is now being filed before this Hon’ble
Court. The delay in filing the present petition is neither intentional nor
deliberate but due to the reason stated above.

20. That the annexures annexed along with the present petition are true
copies of their originals.

21. That the present Petition is bonafide and is being preferred before this
Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

22. That the Petitioner has affixed requisite court fees on the petition.

PRAYER

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is most humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

A. Allow the present petition ;

B. Issue a Writ(s)/ Order(s)/ Directions in nature of Certiorari, thereby

quashing the Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original
Application No. 197 of 2020 titled “Shri Naresh Kumar & Ors. versus
Union of India & Ors.”;
C. Pass any such other and further order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem and appropriate in the facts of the present case.

PETITIONERS
Place: New Delhi
Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
Chamber No.29
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Mobile No. 9643121390
E-Mail: hpathakl95l@gmail.com
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, ____________ , aged about ____ years, S/o. ______________ , presently
working as ___________ with the Petitioner No. 3, having office at
______________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case as
per official records and duly authorized to file this affidavit on behalf of all
the Petitioner.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying Writ
Petition, which has been drafted by the counsel on my instructions and the
statement of facts and submissions made therein are true and correct to my
knowledge and the same be read as part and parcel of the affidavit to avoid
repetition. The legal submissions made therein are as per advice received
and believed to be correct.

3. That the contents of synopsis and list of date and events qua deponent are
true and correct to my knowledge.
4. That the factual averment made qua the petitioner from para ___to ___of
writ petition are true and correct to my knowledge.

5. That the Grounds and legal averment made from paras___ to ____ and the
Prayer is based on the legal advice which I believe to be correct.

6. That the annexure qua the deponent annexed with the Writ Petition are true
copies of respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi, on this __ day of January 2025 that the contents of
paras 1 and 6 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.
Nothing is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING STAY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LD.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN O.A. 197
OF 2020.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner
assailing the Order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 197 of 2020. The
contents of the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity and
the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of the present
application.

2. That the impugned Order has been passed without considering the facts
of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
The Ld. Tribunal has erred in not considering that the Respondents
 were not working as regular employees/ Assistants in the years between
1984 to 1989, rather were paid on hourly rates for their service. The
Respondents were within the RTP Scheme and were subsequently
regularized as Postal Assistants. Thus, the directions passed by the Ld.
Tribunal to consider the service of the Respondents as under the RTP
Scheme for consequential benefits after being regularized is erroneous
and thus liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

3. The Petitioners seek an ad interim ex-parte stay of the impugned Order

during the pendency of the accompanying petition.

4. That the Petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the present
application is not allowed and the impugned Order is not stayed during
the pendency of the accompanying Writ Petition.

5. That on the other hand, the Respondent shall not suffer any loss or
injury if the present application is allowed and the impugned order is
stayed during the pendency of the accompanying Writ Petition.

6. That the present application is bonafide and is made in the interest of

justice.
PRAYER

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to:

A. Allow the present application and grant ex-parte stay ;

 B. Stay the execution of the impugned Order dated 18.09.2024 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in Original Application No. 197 of 2020 titled “Shri Naresh
Kumar & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.”;

C. Pass any such other/further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER
Place: New Delhi
Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, ____________ , aged about ____ years, S/o. ______________ , presently
working as ___________ with the Petitioner, having office at
______________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case as
per official records and duly authorized to file this affidavit on behalf of all
the Petitioner.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying

application, which has been drafted by the counsel on my instructions and
the statement of facts and submissions made therein are true and correct to
my knowledge and the same be read as part and parcel of the affidavit to
avoid repetition. The legal submissions made therein are as per advice
received and believed to be correct.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi, on this __ day of January 2025 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING OF THE
CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ORDERS AND DOCUMENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying petition has been filed by the Petitioner
assailing the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 197
of 2020. The contents of the same are not being repeated for the sake of
brevity and the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of the
present application.

2. That the Petitioner seek exemption from filing of the certified copies of
the impugned order and other documents filed as annexures along with
the accompanying writ petition.
3. That it is most humbly submitted that the present writ petition may
kindly be adjudicated based on the true typed copies of the annexures
and photocopies of the original documents/ annexures. These
documents are true to their original.

PRAYER
In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to:

A. Exempt the Petitioner from filing the certified copies of the orders
and annexures;

B. Pass any such other/ further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case and in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER

Place: New Delhi

Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, ____________ , aged about ____ years, S/o. ______________ , presently
working as ___________ with the Petitioner, having office at
______________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case as
per official records and duly authorized to file this affidavit on behalf of all
the Petitioner.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying

application, which has been drafted by the counsel on my instructions and
the statement of facts and submissions made therein are true and correct to
my knowledge and the same be read as part and parcel of the affidavit to
avoid repetition. The legal submissions made therein are as per advice
received and believed to be correct.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi, on this __ day of January 2025 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CLEAR/TYPED COPIES OF DIM DOCUMENTS AND EXEMPTION
FROM FILING ORIGINAL COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the accompanying petition has been filed by the Petitioner

assailing the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Ld. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 197
of 2020. The contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel
of the present application.

2. That in the accompanying Petition the Petitioner has prayed for an

urgent relief in the nature of the ex-parte stay of the impugned Order. It
has further been ensured that all copies of the documents/ annexures are
legible and bear correct margin, however, the Petitioner pray for filing
 better legible copies of dim annexures along with proper margin, if so
directed by the Hon’ble Court.
3. The present application has been made bonafide and in the interest of
justice.

PRAYER

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may
kindly be pleased to:

A. Grant exemption from filing legible/clean of the documents filed along

with the petition;

B. Pass any such other/ further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the
interest of justice.

PETITIONER

Place: New Delhi

Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M. APPLICATION NO. OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, ____________ , aged about ____ years, S/o. ______________ , presently
working as ___________ with the Petitioner, having office at
______________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case as
per official records and duly authorized to file this affidavit on behalf of all
the Petitioner.

2. That I have read and understood the contents of the accompanying

application, which has been drafted by the counsel on my instructions and
the statement of facts and submissions made therein are true and correct to
my knowledge and the same be read as part and parcel of the affidavit to
avoid repetition. The legal submissions made therein are as per advice
received and believed to be correct.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi, on this __ day of January 2025 that the contents
of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the complete record of the captioned matter filed
before the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal has been filed along with the
present Writ Petition. That no additional document(s) other than the record of
the Ld. Tribunal has been filed herein.

PETITIONER
Place: New Delhi
Date:
Through

Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …PETITIONERS
VERSUS
NARESH KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

VAKALATNAMA

KNOW ALL to whom these present shall come that _________________, aged about
___ years, S/o. Mr. ___________ presently working as ___________ with ________
for the abovenamed PETITIONERS do here by appoint:
Himanshu Pathak
Counsel for the Petitioners
Ch. 29, Patiala House Court, New Delhi
Mobile No. 9643121390
E-Mail: hpathakl95l@gmail.com

hereinafter called the advocate/s) to be my/our Advocate in the above noted case
authorized him:-
To act, appear and plead in the above-noted case in this Court or in any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard and also in the appellate Court including
High Court subject to payment of fees separately for each Court by me/ us.
To sign, file verify and present pleadings, appeals cross objections or petitions
for execution review, revision, withdrawal, compromise or other petitions or affidavits
or other documents as may be deemed necessary or proper for the prosecution of the
said case in all its stages.
To file and take back documents to admit and/or deny the documents of opposite
party.
To withdraw or compromise the said case or submit to arbitration any
differences or disputes that may arise touching or in any manner relating to the said
case.
To take execution proceedings.
The deposit, draw and receive money, cheques, cash and grant receipts thereof
and to do all other acts and things which may be necessary to be done for the progress
and in the course of the prosecution of the said case.
To appoint and instruct any other Legal Practitioner, authorizing him to
exercise the power and authority hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may
think it to do so and to sign the Power of Attorney on our behalf.
And I/We the undersigned do hereby agree to ratify and confirm all acts done by
the Advocate or his substitute in the matter as my/our own acts, as if done by me/us to
all intents and purposes.
And I/We undertake that I/we or my/our duly authorized agent would appear in
the Court on all hearings and will inform the Advocates for appearance when the case is
called.
And I /we undersigned do hereby agree not to hold the advocate or his substitute
responsible for the result of the said case. The adjournment costs whenever ordered by
the Court shall be of the Advocate which he shall receive and retain himself.
And I /we the undersigned do hereby agree that in the event of the whole or part
of the fee agreed by me/us to be paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall be
entitled to withdraw from the prosecution of the said case until the same is paid up. The
fee settled is only for the above case and above Court. I/We hereby agree that once the
fee is paid. I /we will not be entitled for the refund of the same in any case whatsoever.
If the case lasts for more than three years, the advocate shall be entitled for additional
fee equivalent to half of the agreed fee for every addition three years or part thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I/We do hereunto set my /our hand to these

presents the contents of which have been understood by me/us on this the ______ day
of January 2025.

Accepted subject to the terms of fees.

Advocates Client Client