$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010359032026 + W.P.(C) 11151/2026 & CM APPLs. 51657-51658/2026 PFRDA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avi Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bhavya Chhikara and Mr. Kunal Raj, Advocates. versus PENSION FUND REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PFRDA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankur Chibber, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Aryan Kumar and Ms. Rashi Singh, Advocates for R-1 to R- 3. Mr. Vinay Yadav, CGSC with Mr. Neeraj Paulose Raj, Advocate for R- 4/UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. The present petition has been instituted by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Employees Association, a registered trade union comprising employees of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority1, a statutory authority constituted under the PFRDA Act, 2013. The Petitioner Association assails, inter alia, various 1 “PFRDA” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:13:55 appointments and engagements made by PFRDA on contractual and deputation basis, as well as the implementation of the Transfer Policy in respect of its employees. 2. Mr. Ankur Chibber, Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that PFRDA is a notified authority falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal2 under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the dispute raised herein falls within the jurisdiction of the CAT. 3. Mr. Avi Singh, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Association, does not dispute that PFRDA is a notified authority amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. His limited concern is that the Petitioner Association should not be non-suited from approaching the Tribunal in a representative capacity. In support of this submission, he places reliance on Rules 4 and 5(a) and (b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 4. On this aspect, Mr. Chibber submits that, in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the grievance raised by the Petitioner Association lies within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. He also points out that certain employees of PFRDA have already approached the Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. According to him, if the Petitioner Association seeks to espouse the cause of its members, even in a representative capacity, its proper remedy is before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. In view of the above position, Mr. Avi Singh seeks leave to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to approach the Central Administrative This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:13:55 Tribunal in accordance with law. 6. Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted. 7. The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 8. The petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 12, 2026/hc 2 “CAT” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 12:13:55