W.P.(C) 9219/2026 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9219/2026, CM APPL. 43301/2026, CM APPL. 43302/2026, CM APPL. 43303/2026 & CM APPL. 43304/2026 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Siddharth, Standing Counsel for ESIC with Ms. Himanshi Girdhar and Mr. Deepanshu Grover, Advs. versus PAWAN KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar SPC with Mr Rahul Kumar Sharma, Govt Pleader for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 23.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition, filed on or after 26 May 2026, challenges the following order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 603/2021, nearly a year and a half earlier on 30 January 2025: “The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs :- "(i) Issue appropriate direction or order quashing Memorandum issued by the Respondent No. 1 dated 1 “the Tribunal” hereinafter Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.07.2026 15:41:08 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9219/2026 16.02.2021 viz. 'All India revised Final Gradation/ Seniority list of Head Clerk/Assistant in the Level 6 of the 7th CPC as on 31/03/2016 ('Impugned Seniority List'). (ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to redraw the Seniority List of Head Clerk/Assistant in the Level 6 of the 7th CPC as on 31/03/2016; (iii) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions states that based on the revised policy on which the applicant seeks to rely they have taken the necessary steps qua the seniority list. He assures, on instruction that the necessary compliance will be done within a period of 12 weeks. 3. In view of the categorical statement made at Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents, shall be redraw the Seniority List of Head Clerk/Assistant in terms of the new revised policy dated 24.05.2022. The prayer made by the applicant stands satisfied. 4. This disposes of the present O.A. in aforesaid terms. All pending M.As, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 5. No order as to costs” 2. The delay in challenging the impugned judgment has been thus sought to be explained – we may say, in fact, explained away: (i) The decision to challenge the impugned order was taken in June 2025 – over 6 months after the order was passed, with no explanation for this delay. (ii) The writ petition was filed more than 3 months thereafter on 17 September 2025 – there is no explanation for this period of 3 months either. (iii) The writ petition remained in defects, with no attempt Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.07.2026 15:41:08 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 9219/2026 made to cure the defects. (iv) Even after the respondent filed Contempt Petition (C) 442/2025 before the Tribunal, alleging non-compliance with the impugned order, the defects in the writ petition remained uncured. (v) The case files were transferred to the office of the D(M), Delhi, four months thereafter in January 2026. (vi) It was only after the Tribunal ordered the personal presence of the Director General2, ESIC, vide order dated 13 March 2026, that the DG submitted an affidavit before the Tribunal on 6 May 2026, seeking to explain the delay in challenging the impugned order. (vii) Thereafter, in June 2026, the present writ petition was filed before this Court. The explanation tendered, at a bare glance, is woefully inadequate for this Court to shut its eyes to the gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the impugned order. 3. The Supreme Court has, in Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd v. Ram Gopal3, held that inordinate delay, if not satisfactorily explained, has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 “DG”, hereinafter 3 (2021) 13 SCC 225 Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.07.2026 15:41:08 W.P.(C) 9219/2026 To the same effect is Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley4. 4. It is also settled that orders passed on consent are ordinarily not amenable to challenge. The proper course of action, where the consent was given without authority or was otherwise unjustified, is to move the same Court in appropriate proceedings. No attempt, in that direction, has been made by the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, keeping in mind that the impugned order is a consent order as well as on the ground of latches, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. However, we make it clear that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of this case. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. C. HARI SHANKAR, J VINOD KUMAR, J JULY 23, 2026/cd 4 (2024) 15 SCC 215 Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:31.07.2026 15:41:08