$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 02.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3162/2026, CM APPL. 15250/2026, CM APPL.

15251/2026 and CM APPL. 15252/2026 NBCC INDIA LIMITED AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Brijender Chahar, ASG with Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs. versus NOVMAN AHMED AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandraj Jog and Mr.

A.K. Behra, Senior Advocates with Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mr. Shakti Singh and Mr. Sarthak Karol, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as „Constitution‟], NBCC (India) Limited/Petitioner No.1 and its subsidiary company HSCC (India) Limited/Petitioner No.2, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 23.02.2026 [hereinafter referred to as „IO-1‟] and 27.02.2026 [hereinafter referred to as „IO- 2‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟]. It may be relevant to highlight that the Petitioners in the present case are incorporated Government companies.

2. At the outset it may be noticed that the present petition raises a question of considerable significance touching upon the jurisdictional contours of the Tribunal. Therefore, the question that would be answered by way of this judgment is whether an employee appointed by the Hon‟ble President of India, also acting in the capacity of a President of an incorporated Government company, can be said, in the eye of the law, to hold a civil post within the contours of Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1985‟], thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to entertain and decide service dispute.

A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

3. In order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

4. Upon enactment of the Act of 1985, the Tribunal was duly constituted, ushering in a specialized adjudicatory regime for service jurisprudence. The Petitioner No.1 is an incorporated Government company functioning under the aegis of Respondent No.2/Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India („MoHUA‟). Whereas, the Petitioner No.2 is a subsidiary company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1956‟] on 13.03.1983, thereby operating within the corporate fold of the Petitioner No.1.

5. The dispute seeking jurisdiction of this Court originates from a Recruitment Notice issued by the Department of Personnel and Training („DoPT‟) inviting applications for the post of Managing Director („MD‟) to the Petitioner No.2. At the relevant point of time, the Respondent No.1 was serving as an Executive Director (Engineering) [hereinafter referred to as „ED (Eng.)‟] with the Petitioner No.1. Having been duly selected by the Search-cum- Selection Committee, the Respondent No.1 was relieved from his erstwhile position of ED (Eng.) by the Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, vide Order dated 22.02.2023, the Respondent No.2 conveyed approval of the Competent Authority for appointment of the Respondent No.1 as MD-Petitioner No.2, for a tenure of five years, from the date of assumption of charge till a period of five years or until the date of his superannuation or until further orders, whichever event were to occur earliest. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent No.1 assumed charge of the office of MD-Petitioner No.2.

6. However, the Respondent No.1‟s tenure as MD-Petitioner no.2 was short lived as on 18.11.2025, the Company Secretary of the Petitioner No.1, acting in furtherance of a decision of its Board of Directors (BoD), sought an explanation from the Respondent No.1 regarding alleged serious procedural lapses, irre