LPA 77/2026 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 19.02.2026

% Judgment Delivered on: 29.05.2026

+ LPA 77/2026 & CM APPL. 11112/2026

BRIG RETD SANDEEP KALA .....Appellant

versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RESETTLEMENT

& ORS. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC

with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.

Kritarth Upadhyay and Mr. Vivek

Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

CAV 86/2026

1.The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 / Caveator has entered

appearance.

2.Caveat stands discharged.

LPA 77/2026 Page 2 of 16

CM APPL. 11113/2026

3.Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

4.The Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 11114/2026 & CM APPL. 11115/2026

5.These Applications are filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking

condonation of delay of 4 days in filing and 9 days in re-filing the present

Appeal.

6.Having heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the

averments made in the Applications, we are satisfied that the delay is

sufficiently been explained.

7.Accordingly, the Applications are allowed and the delay of 4 days in

filing and 9 days in re-filing the present Appeals is hereby condoned.

8.The Applications stand disposed of.

LPA 77/2026

INTRODUCTION

9.This is a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent of

the High Court of Judicature at Lahore as applicable to this Court against

judgment dated 23.12.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by this Court

in W.P.(C) No. 10830/2025 (“Writ Petition”) titled as ‘Brig. (Retd.)

Sandeep Kala v. Directorate General of Resettlement & Ors.’.

FACTUAL MATRIX

10.The Appellant, Brigadier (Retired) Sandeep Kala, is a veteran of the

Indian Army. The Appellant has had a long and distinguished career with

the Indian Army and retired on 31.05.2016 after 34 years of service.

LPA 77/2026 Page 3 of 16

11.Respondent No. 1, i.e., the Directorate General of Resettlement

operates under the Department of Ex- Servicemen (“ESM”) Welfare, which

is part of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Respondent No. 1

is vested with the primary mandate of formulating and implementing

policies aimed at the welfare, rehabilitation, and resettlement of ESM, war

widows, dependents of defence personnel.

12.Respondent No. 2, i.e.,Coal India Limited(“CIL”), is a state-owned

Public Sector Undertaking under the control of the Ministry of Coal.

Respondent No. 3, i.e., Ministry of Coal, Government of India, which has

the overall responsibility of determining policies and strategies in respect of

exploration and development of coal and lignite reserves, sanctioning of

important projects of high value and for deciding all related issues.

13.The Appellant submitted an application dated 22.07.2016 under the

Coal India Limited Subsidiary under the Coal Loading and Transportation

Scheme, 1979 (“Scheme”) as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated

12.12.2013 (“2013 MoU”). Respondent No. 1 issued a letter dated

01.10.2018 indicating the Appellant’s likely selection for sponsorship with

theMahanadi Coalfields Limited(“MCL”) and sought confirmation of the

Appellant’s willingness. On 09.10.2018, Respondent No. 1 directed the

Appellant to submit the requisite documents for screening before the Board

of Officers.

14.Pursuant to the Appellant submitting the requisite documents,

Respondent No. 1 on 23.10.2018 informed the Appellant of final selection

and directed the Appellant and other ESM Officers to conduct a feasibility

study at Talcher Coalfields, MCL, Odisha. The Appellant conducted site

LPA 77/2026 Page 4 of 16

visits and feasibility study with fellow ESM Officers at Talcher Coalfields,

MCL, Odisha on 09.11.2018 and 10.11.2018. The Appellant submitted

Feasibility Study Report dated 10.11.2018 to Respondent No. 1. On

09.01.2019, ESM Company,Salute India Logistics Pvt. Ltd.(“ESM

Company”) was formally incorporated with the Ministry of Corporate

Affairs.

15.Respondent No. 1 on 15.01.2019 called upon the Appellant for final

sponsorship and original document verification. On 18.01.2019, the

Appellant appeared before the Board of Officers and completed the final

step before award of work.

16.Videletter dated 31.01.2019, Major Gurtej Singh (Retd.) (“Maj. G.

Singh”) was dis-empanelled by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1

inducted Colonel Yogendra Mohan Sharma (Retd.) to replace Maj. G. Singh

on 07.02.2019. Maj. G. Singh filed a CWP 5225/2019 titled as ‘Major

Gurtej Singh v. Union of India and Others’ challenging the letter dated

31.01.2019 issued by Respondent No. 1 for the Punjab & Haryana High

Court at Chandigarh (“P&H High Court”).Videorder dated 27.02.2019,

the P&H High Court stayed the dis-empanelment of Maj. G. Singh.

17.Respondent No. 1 placed the Appellant’s ESM Company under ‘Held

in Abeyance’ (“HIA”) on 20.03.2019. The Appellant on 17.06.2019

protested against the HIA status and requested allocation in the next

available vacancy. Respondent No. 1 published the Waiting List dated

06.01.2020 (“Waiting List”) with the Appellant at Serial No. 3, confirming

continued eligibility. Respondent No. 2 on 26.06.2020 and 30.06.2020

unilaterally exited the 2013 MoU.

LPA 77/2026 Page 5 of 16

18.This Courtvideorder dated 21.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 4384/2020

titled as ‘Col. Laxmi Narayan (Retd.) & Ors. v. Coal India Limited & Ors.’

granted interim relief to protect the eligibility of similarly placed ESM

Officers. This Court further directed the Respondents to resolve the existing

issues amicably and take steps for renewal of the 2013 MoUvideorder

dated 21.09.2020. Respondent No. 1 issued letters dated 20.06.2022

confirming continued protection of age / seniority for waitlisted ESM

Officers.

19.On 06.12.2024, the Appellant was invited by Respondent No. 1 to a

stakeholder meeting on a revised Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”).

The Appellant participated in the stakeholder meeting and raised concerns

over the protection of eligibility.

20.This Courtvideorder dated 09.04.2025 directed Respondent No. 1 to

place the final Memorandum of Understanding on record. The same was

placed on record by Respondent No. 2. The Appellant was informed in the

meeting with Respondent No. 1 on 16.07.2025 that overage ESM are being

excluded.

21.The Appellant preferred the Writ Petition before the learned Single

Judge which was dismissedvidethe Impugned Judgment. Accordingly, the

Appellant aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment filed the present Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

22.Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned Counsel for the Appellant has made the

following submissions:

22.1.The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the case of

the Appellant stands on a footing distinct from that of the other

LPA 77/2026 Page 6 of 16

ESM Officers before the Court, inasmuch as the Appellant had

already participated in the sponsorship process and only the

formal issuance of a letter by Respondent No. 1 remained

pending, before the Appellant was inequitably placed under

HIA on account of third-party litigation. But for such placement

under HIA, the Appellant would have been allotted an ESM

Company.

22.2.The learned Single Judge further failed to consider that the

eligibility requirement of 60 years of age is inapplicable to an

ESM Officer who had initiated the sponsorship process while

fully eligible but crossed the age threshold before the final

allotment of the ESM Company. The Appellant had placed on

record material before the learned Single Judge showing that

Major General (Retd.) Bhupinder Singh was allotted an ESM

Company despite having crossed the age of 62 years, as

applicable, by the date of sponsorship. The record of

Respondent No. 1 therefore demonstrates that, once the process

of sponsorship is initiated, there is no absolute prohibition

against allotment of an ESM Company to a candidate who has

crossed the age of 60/62 years, as applicable, by the stage of

final allotment.

22.3.The learned Single Judge also failed to note that, in the present

case, the process of sponsorship had already been initiated by

Respondent No. 1 on 01.10.2018 and that, out of the five

prescribed stages, the Appellant had completed all five, with

only the final and formal approval of Respondent No. 1

LPA 77/2026 Page 7 of 16

remaining pending when the Appellant was placed under HIA.

In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge

that the Appellant had, in any event, become ineligible under

the Scheme upon crossing the age of 60 years is erroneous,

since that requirement was not applicable to the Appellant in

the facts of the present case.

22.4.The learned Single Judge further erred in holding that no work

had been allotted to any other ESM Companies. In fact, after

the Appellant was placed under HIA, the vacancy in respect of

the Appellant’s ESM Company was allotted to another group of

ESMs operating an ESM Company. The correctness of the

Appellant’s grievance was not examined in its proper

perspective, particularly when the Appellant had been placed

under HIA on account of third-party litigation initiated by Maj.

G. Singh, in which the Appellant was not even a party.

22.5.The learned Single Judge did not consider the legal

consequences of the Appellant having been placed under HIA

on his eligibility for allotment under the 2013 MoU executed

between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Appellant’s placement

under HIA necessarily implied protection of his eligibility and

seniority under the 2013 MoU. This is evident from the fact

that Colonel Yogendra Mohan Sharma, (Retd.) who was

similarly placed under HIA, had already crossed the age of 60

years at the time he was placed on the Waiting List by

Respondent No. 1. This position is further reinforced by the

assurances extended by Respondent No. 1 to all waitlisted ESM

LPA 77/2026 Page 8 of 16

Officers, including the Appellant, that their seniority and

eligibility would remain protected, and by the fact that the

Appellant continued to be recognized as a stakeholder in the

revised MoU as late as December, 2024.

22.6.The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the

unilateral termination of the 2013 MoU by Respondent No. 2

on 30.06.2020, followed by prolonged negotiations with

Respondent No. 1 over a period of five years culminating in a

revised MoU, resulted in the creation of a distinct class of ESM

Officers who have been subjected to discriminatory treatment.

This class alone has been excluded from the benefit of the

rehabilitation and resettlement measures specifically designed

by Respondent No. 1 for such officers.

22.7.The prolonged inter-departmental and ministerial deliberations

between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 gave rise to a sub-class of

ESM Officers who, during the period from 2020 to 2025,

crossed the prescribed age limits of 60/62 years, depending on

rank, thereby being rendered ineligible under a Scheme that

remained under consideration throughout that period. Neither

was the Appellant extended the benefit of any alternative

scheme, nor was the Appellant’s seniority and eligibility

protected under the original scheme. This, it is submitted,

amounts to a violation of the Appellant’s fundamental right to

equality and equal treatment under Article 14 of the

Constitution.

LPA 77/2026 Page 9 of 16

22.8.The Appellant’s application had already progressed to an

advanced stage of sponsorship, and the Appellant had been

formally placed under HIA pending resolution between the

authorities. However, the Appellant was ultimately rendered

ineligible under the newly proposed Scheme placed before this

Court by the Respondents. Such exclusion effectively

extinguishes the Appellant’s accrued rights and legitimate

expectations without due process, thereby offending the

doctrines of promissory estoppel and non-arbitrariness. Such

treatment violates the Appellant’s right to equality before the

law and equal protection of the laws under Article 14 of the

Constitution and also fails the test of fairness embedded in

Article 21, which guarantees dignity, procedural fairness, and

protection against arbitrary State action.

22.9.The existence of the Scheme, coupled with the mandate of

Respondent No. 1 to ensure the effective rehabilitation and

resettlement of ESM personnel, gave rise to a legitimate

expectation on the part of the Appellant that, upon retirement

from service, the Appellant would be entitled to rehabilitation

and attendant benefits under such welfare measures for ESM

personnel. The denial of that legitimate expectation, and the

resulting exclusion of the Appellant from the benefits of the

Scheme despite having been eligible at the relevant time,

constitutes discrimination and violates the Appellant’s

fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.

LPA 77/2026 Page 10 of 16

22.10.The learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the actions

of the Respondents are contrary to the Directive Principles of

State Policy embodied in Articles 38, 39 and 41 of the

Constitution, which require the State to secure social justice,

equal opportunity, and assistance to citizens, particularly those

who have rendered military service and are in need of

rehabilitation. The Scheme was a beneficial policy specifically

intended to aid the resettlement of retired members of the

Armed Forces.

22.11.Accordingly, the present Appeal deserves to be allowed and the

Impugned Judgment is liable to be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

23.Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, learned CGSC for the Respondents

made the following submissions:

23.1.In terms of the Guidelines on Formation and Running of ESM

Coal Transport Companies, the Appellant had crossed the

prescribed age of eligibility as on 20.06.2020. Consequently, the

Appellant ceased to be entitled to sponsorship under the Scheme,

23.2.Admittedly, the Appellant was never sponsored by Respondent

No. 1. Mere registration does not confer any vested right, as

sponsorship constitutes a distinct stage contingent upon

continued fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.

23.3.No exception or relaxation was ever promised or extended to the

Appellant by Respondent No. 1. The Appellant is governed by

the same policy parameters as all other ESM personnel and

cannot, therefore, claim any special dispensation.

LPA 77/2026 Page 11 of 16

23.4.Maj. G. Singh, one of the Directors of the proposed ESM

Company of which the Appellant was also a Director, was dis-

empaneled upon receipt of complaints from the other Directors,

including the Appellant, on the ground of non-payment of the

initial capital contribution.

23.5.Maj. G. Singh challenged his dis-empanelment before the P&H

High Court and obtained an interim order dated 27.02.2019

staying the said dis-empanelment. As the said matter remainssub

judice, the proposed ESM Company could not be sponsored.

23.6.The Appellant had availed re-employment in the Indian Army

after retirement. Despite being aware of both his ineligibility and

the pendency of the proceedings, the Appellant did not approach

this Court with due promptitude. The Appellant’s belated attempt

to seek age relaxation, which is neither contemplated by nor

permissible under the Scheme, is therefore unsustainable.

23.7.Accordingly, it is submitted that the present Appeal is liable to be

dismissed and the Impugned Judgment deserves to be upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

24.We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and considered the

Impugned Judgment as well as the material available on record.

25.The principal questions that arises for consideration is whether the

learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition preferred

by the Appellant, and whether the Appellant, notwithstanding having

crossed the prescribed age limit prior to the issuance of a formal sponsorship

letter, is entitled to allotment of an ESM Company under the Scheme.

LPA 77/2026 Page 12 of 16

26.The Appellant is a retired Brigadier who served in the Indian Army

for 34 years and retired on 31.05.2016. The Appellant submitted an

application under the Scheme on 22.07.2016. The record indicates that

Respondent No. 1 had initiated the sponsorship process and that, by

18.01.2019, the Appellant had completed all five prescribed stages.

However, on 20.03.2019, the Appellant’s ESM Company was placed under

HIA on account of a stay order dated 27.02.2019 obtained by a co-Director

of the proposed ESM Company from the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It

is not in dispute that the Appellant had no connection with the said litigation

and was not impleaded as a party therein.

27.Before dealing with the rival submissions, it is apposite to note that the

Scheme is a welfare measure intended to facilitate the rehabilitation and

resettlement of retired Army personnel. However, the beneficial character of

the Scheme cannot be construed to mean that its eligibility conditions may be

relaxed or disregarded. Even a welfare measure must be administered in

accordance with its prescribed terms and conditions. Therefore, it is not

permissible to rewrite or dilute the conditions of the Scheme, but the only issue

that can be examined is whether the authorities have acted in conformity the

Scheme. The mere fact that the Scheme is a welfare measure does not entitle

the Appellant to claim continuation of seniority under the Scheme pursuant to

the revised MoU. The discontinuation of the 2013 MoU was a matter of policy

and, since no vested rights had accrued to the Appellant solely by reason of his

placement in the Waiting List, such discontinuation cannot be held to be

arbitrary, unjust, or prejudicial to his legal interests.

28.It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that by 18.01.2019 the

LPA 77/2026 Page 13 of 16

Appellant had completed every substantive stage of the sponsorship process

and that only the formal issuance of a letter by Respondent No. 1 remained. It

is settled law that, unless and until formal sponsorship is granted by

Respondent No. 1, no enforceable right accrues in favour of an applicant under

the Scheme. It is an admitted position that the Appellant was never formally

sponsored by Respondent No. 1. Completion of the preliminary or intermediate

stages of the sponsorship process, however advanced, does not amount to

sponsorship and does not vest any right to allotment under the Scheme.

29.Sponsorship is a distinct and independent stage, and eligibility must

subsist on the date on which such sponsorship is granted. Since the Appellant

had crossed the prescribed age limit before any sponsorship was accorded, the

Appellant ceased to be eligible under the terms of the Scheme. The HIA status

imposed on 20.03.2019 was merely an administrative measure intended to

preserve the statusquopending resolution of the third-party litigation before

the P&H High Court in CWP 5225/2019.

30.In our considered view, the contention of the Respondents that the HIA

status, though occasioned by third-party litigation, cannot operate as a legal

fiction to arrest the Appellant’s age or extend eligibility beyond what the

Scheme permits, is well founded. No provision of the Scheme, nor any order of

a competent authority, conferred upon the Appellant any relaxation of the

prescribed age criterion. The HIA status was only an administrative

arrangement to maintain the statusquoin light of the pending litigation and

cannot be construed either as a guarantee of allotment or as a suspension of the

eligibility conditions prescribed under the Scheme.

31.This Court can enforce only existing legal rights; it cannot create rights

where none have accrued. Since no right had crystallized in favour of the

LPA 77/2026 Page 14 of 16

Appellant, no direction can be issued to Respondent No. 1 to treat the

Appellant as eligible under the revised Scheme pursuant to the revised MoU.

32.As regards the reliance placed by the Appellant upon the case of Major

General (Retd.) Bhupinder Singh, we are of the view that the one-time

relaxation sought by the Appellant cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Any

previous relaxation that may have been granted by Respondent No. 1 was in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and cannot constitute a

binding precedent.

33.It is well settled that no person can claim equality in illegality.

Therefore, even assuming that Respondent No. 1 had, in a particular case, acted

contrary to the prescribed age criterion, such action cannot furnish a ground to

compel similar treatment in the present case. No writ in the nature of

mandamuscan be issued directing the grant of a relaxation contrary to the

terms of the Scheme.

34.We also find no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the

Appellant that the assurances allegedly extended by Respondent No. 1 between

2020 and 2024 created any legally enforceable legitimate expectation of

allotment. The inclusion of the Appellant’s name in the Waiting List and the

letters dated 20.06.2022 assuring protection of seniority were general

communications addressed to all waitlisted ESM Officers and cannot be

construed as individual promises of allotmentdehorsthe eligibility conditions

prescribed under the Scheme.

35.Likewise, the invitation extended to the Appellant to attend the

stakeholder meeting held on 06.12.2024 for discussion of the revised MoU

cannot be treated as a representation that the Appellant would be allotted an

ESM Company irrespective of eligibility. Legitimate expectation must be

LPA 77/2026 Page 15 of 16

founded upon a clear, unambiguous, and specific representation, none of

which has been established in the present case. In the absence of any such

promise or assurance, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application

to the facts of the present case. In any event, the principle of promissory

estoppel cannot be invoked to obtain relief beyond the power and authority

of Respondent No. 1.

36.The submission that the Appellant forms part of a distinct class of

ESM Officers, who have been subjected to discriminatory treatment, is

equally untenable. The ESM Officers placed in the Waiting List had no

enforceable entitlement to coal transportation contracts under the 2013

MoU. Consequently, the exclusion of the Appellant from the revised MoU

does not result in the creation of any separate or distinct class among ESM

Officers. The question of discrimination or unequal treatment therefore does

not arise, since all ESM Officers on the Waiting List stood on the same

footing, none having acquired any vested right to allotment under the 2013

MoU. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 has no authority to grant relaxations

to particular categories of ESM Officers, thereby excluding any scope for

arbitrary exercise of discretionary power.

37.We are further of the view that the Appellant’s prolonged inaction

also operates against the grant of relief. As rightly observed by the learned

Single Judge, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the Appellant.

The chronology of events on record demonstrates that, when Respondent

No. 2 withdrew from the 2013 MoU on 26.06.2020, the Appellant had

already crossed the prescribed age of 60 years, the Appellant’s date of birth

being 16.05.1960. During the period from 20.03.2019, when the Appellant’s

ESM Company was placed under HIA until 26.06.2020, when Respondent

LPA 77/2026 Page 16 of 16

No. 2 exited the 2013 MoU, no work was admittedly allocated to any ESM

Officer. The last allocation in terms of the seniority rules had been made in

2018. In these circumstances, even if Respondent No. 2 had not withdrawn

from the 2013 MoU, the Appellant would, in any event, have become

ineligible under the Scheme upon crossing the age of 60 years prior to the

rescission of the 2013 MoU by Respondent No. 2.

38.In view of the foregoing discussion, no interference with the

Impugned Judgment is warranted. The learned Single Judge correctly

appreciated both the factual matrix and the legal position and committed no

error in dismissing the Writ Petition. The Appellant, having crossed the

prescribed age limit prior to formal sponsorship and no relaxation of the age

criterion having ever been promised or extended, cannot claim any

entitlement to allotment under the Scheme.

39.The Impugned Judgment dated 23.12.2025 is accordingly upheld. The

present Appeal, along with the pending Application, stands dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

MAY 29, 2026

‘N’