New Delhi Municipal Council v. Sandeep Sharma & Ors.

1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 28 November 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal

C. HARI SHANKAR, J. in OA 2970/2019.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of the OA in terms of paras 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment dated 5 March 2025 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in OA 3597/2017, subject to the outcome of the WP (C) 7098/2025 pending before this Court against the said decision.

3. Paras 20 to 22 of the judgment dated 5 March 2025 of the Tribunal in OA 3597/2019 reads thus:

4. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner pointed out at the outset that, while paras 20 to 22 of the judgment dated 5 March 2025 of the Tribunal in OA 3597/2019 granted regularization to the applicants in the said OA, the respondents, who were the applicants before the Tribunal in the present case expressly gave up their claim for regularization in OA 2907/2019. Thus, he submits that the Tribunal could not have granted regularization to the respondents in excess of the relief sought by them.

5. Dr. Monika Arora, appearing for the respondents submits that the manner in which Mr. Udit Dedhiya reads the pleadings in the OA is not sustainable and that if a holistic reading is accorded to the OA, it would be apparent that the respondents had not given up their claim for regularization. She submits that it is not correct to pull out to extract one sentence from an OA and interpret the pleadings in the OA based on that sentence.

6. Dr. Monika Arora further submits that the OA was drafted prior to the rendition of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaggo, and the series of decisions which follow Jaggo, which would entitle her clients to regularization.

7. We pointed out to Dr. Arora that, if that was the case, the respondents should have amended the OA after the rendition of the judgment in Jaggo, which has also not taken place.

8. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that the Tribunal has blindly followed paras 20 to 22 of its earlier decision dated 5 March 2025 in OA 3597/2019, without adverting to the pleadings in the OA, and keeping in mind the objections raised by Mr. Udit Dedhiya before us, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28 November 2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA 2907/2019 and to remand the OA for consideration and decision afresh to the Tribunal.

9. We have noted the submissions of Mr. Udit Dedhiya and of Dr. Monika Arora before us but do not express any view thereon, leaving the matter to be decided by the Tribunal in its wisdom.

10. All issues of fact and law would remain open to be urged before the Tribunal which would, needless to say, proceed in the matter uninfluenced by the impugned order.