Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Rhea Verma and Ms. Poorvi Rewalia, Advs v. U.O.I ORS

Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 02.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The issue in controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the punishment of withholding of two increments in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect could be sustained.

2. Mr Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has restricted his submission to the plea that the impugned order of punishment stands vitiated as it was issued on the basis of an advice received from the Union Public Service Commission1, no copy of which was provided to his client. Signature Not Verified 1 “UPSC” hereinafter Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Date:19.05.2025 11:14:13 W.P.(C) 13864/2006

3. We have heard learned Counsel on this issue at some length.

4. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v R.P. Singh2 whereas Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC placed reliance on the decision in UOI v T.V. Patel3. Thereafter, Mr. Ankur Chhibber pointed out that prior to the decision in T.V. Patel, the principle in R.P. Singh had earlier been enunciated in S.N. Narula v UOI4. As such, applying the law laid down in para 35 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v Jammu and Kashmir National Conference5, the decision in S.N. Narula would have precedence.

5. We have dealt with an identical issue in our decision in the case of Ministry of Railways v Mohan Singh Sandhu6 in which we have held that, given the position of law enunciated in Union Territory of Ladakh, the decision in S.N. Narula would rule the roost, so long as it is not reversed by any higher Court. The relevant paragraphs, from Mohan Singh Sandhu, may be reproduced thus: “7. Certain decisions hold that the advice is required to be furnished, whereas others take a contrary view. The matter has, therefore, been referred by the Supreme Court to a larger Bench by order dated 4 July 2017 in UOI v Anup Kumar Sinha7.

8. Though, of the decisions referred to in the order of reference, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v T.V. Patel held that the copy of the UPSC advice need not be given to