Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
Mr.Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
Through: Mr. Samarth Luthra and Mr.Manish, Advs.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in C.P. 621/2016, arising out of O.A. No. 1217/2015, titled Dr. Izhar Ul Hasan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., wherein the learned Tribunal has held that the Order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the petitioner suffers from fundamental error as the same has not been approved by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi. It has further been observed that the termination order has been passed retrospectively with effect from 26.03.2015, though the earlier termination order has been set aside by the Tribunal, therefore, the Order suffers from total non application of mind by the officials.
2. The O.A. No. 1217/2015, titled Dr. Izhar Ul Hasan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., had been disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 27.09.2016, with the following directions:
3. In purported compliance with the above directions, the petitioners claimed that they have passed the Order dated 18.04.2017 taking the approval of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor for the termination of respondent’s services with effect from 26.03.2015.
4. One of the issues, therefore, is whether the Order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the petitioners has the approval of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced before us the original file relating to the termination of the contractual employment of the respondent.
6. Upon perusal of the said original file, it appears that pursuant to the said Order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. 1217/2015, the file was placed before the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, who vide an Order dated 06.12.2016, after going through the relevant records, agreed to the proposal for termination of contractual services of the respondent and directed that a reasoned Speaking Order should be issued by the Department. The Order dated 18.04.2017, which is purported by the petitioners to be the Speaking Order passed in compliance with the direction of the learned Tribunal as also of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, however, did not have the sanction of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, as would be evident from the noting dated 17.05.2017, whereby the Hon’ble Lt. Governor had directed that the ‘Draft Speaking Order’ may be vetted by the Law Department ‘specially on the issue of the effective date of termination of the respondent and keeping in view the observations of the learned Tribunal and the fact that the original contract was only up to 31.03.2015’.
7. The Office Order dated 18.04.2017, therefore, cannot be purported to be an Order issued by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor in compliance with the dated 27.09.2016 of the learned Tribunal.
8. In view thereof, the Order dated 27.09.2016 of the learned Tribunal passed in the above referred O.A. still remains to be complied with by the petitioners.
9. We therefore, find no infirmity in the learned Tribunal passing the Impugned Order dated 19.04.2017 in C.P. No. 621/2016, which had been filed by the respondent seeking compliance with the Order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1217/2015.
10. We find no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed.
11. The learned Tribunal shall proceed further with the contempt proceedings, subject to the petitioners now complying with the dated 27.09.2016, for which purpose we extend the time further by a period of four weeks.
12. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 12th February, 2026.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 15, 2025/b/Av/Yg