Chander Dev v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.4511/2024, titled Chander Dev v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The petition also challenges the Order dated 14.08.2014 passed by the respondents, whereby the claim of the petitioner for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Education Officer- General/Senior School Inspector was denied.

3. It is not denied by the petitioner that, as on the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 10.04.2015, the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution in FIR No.377/2005, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860, and Charge- Sheet No. 1/60/2014/CPC/VG/NIV/201/100 dated 18.12.2014. The learned Tribunal, therefore, placing reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992, held that the DPC convened on 10.04.2015 for considering, inter alia, the vacancy for the year 1993- 1994, had rightly placed the petitioner’s case in a sealed cover.

4. Though, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on subsequent developments to contend that the relief of promotion should now be granted to the petitioner.

5. He submits that, insofar as the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are concerned, the same were dropped by the Department vide Resolution No. 193 dated 16.12.2019, as notified by Office Order No. 1/60/2014/Vig./RSB/2020/59 dated 03.02.2020. The petitioner has, therefore, been exonerated. As regards the criminal case, the name of the petitioner was also dropped therefrom vide Office Order dated 30.11.2021. It is, therefore, submitted that the sealed cover now deserves to be opened and the recommendations of the DPC given effect to.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on K.Samba Moorthy v. Sanjiv Chadha & Ors., 2025 INSC 110, to submit that the petitioner is, at the very least, entitled to the notional benefits of both seniority and pay fixation with effect from the year

1993.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that subsequent events would give rise to a fresh cause of action to the petitioner, which cannot be agitated in the present petition. He further submits that the petitioner had made a representation on similar lines to the respondent, which was duly considered and rejected by the respondents vide a speaking order dated 30.08.2022, relying, inter alia, on the OM dated 10.04.1989. He submits that, thereafter, the petitioner was granted the benefit of the first and the second ACP vide Order dated 30.10.2024. He submits that these issues can be adjudicated only in a fresh proceeding, wherein the respondents would have an opportunity to respond to the petitioner’s claim.

8. On the insistence of the petitioner, and in view of our Order dated 19.10.2022, we have opened the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC for the year 1993-1994. The petitioner was found to be ‘fit’ for promotion, subject to the vigilance clearance. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the facts which have arisen subsequent to the passing of the Impugned Order, and the effect thereof, have to be considered in appropriate proceedings, and cannot be made the subject-matter of this petition, particularly in light of the respondents having passed a speaking order dated 30.08.2022, rejecting the representation of the petitioner to the same effect, and the same not being a subject matter of challenge in the petition. The effect of the Order dated 30.10.2024 on the claim of the petitioner would also have to be examined.

9. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by reserving liberty with the petitioner to agitate his claims in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the Orders dated 30.08.2022 or 30.10.2024 passed by the respondents. The legality and effect thereof shall be considered by the appropriate forum in the proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioner.

10. The sealed cover, on being opened and the contents having been perused, the contents of the same have been returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025/rv/DG