Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15.09.2025
UOI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakhra, CGSC
Mishra, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya, Advs.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 14.05.2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 2334/2001 titled Sunder v. UOI & Anr., allowing the said O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following direction:-
he filed this OA. No costs”.
2. The petitioners filed the present petition inter alia contending that the respondent was not entitled to any relaxation in the required educational qualification.
3. It is important to note here that the implementation of the Impugned Order, however, was not stayed by this Court. In between, the petition also was dismissed for non-prosecution vide Order dated 22.07.2004. However, it was restored to its original number on 24.10.2005. Rule D.B. was issued on the same on 08.07.2008. The petition was, thereafter, again dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.01.2020, and was restored on 07.10.2024.
4. When the petition came up for hearing before this Court on 31.01.2025, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners if the Impugned Order has been complied with.
5. The petitioners have now filed an additional affidavit dated 24.03.2025, wherein, it was contended that in compliance with the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal,, vide an Order dated 04.07.2003 passed by the then Divisional Personnel Officer, North Railway, Firozpur Division, the respondent was ordered to be reengaged with further direction for payment of wages with effect from September, 2001. However, the implementation of the said order was subject to the outcome of the present petition. It has further been stated in the additional affidavit that the respondent has since retired from service on 30.06.2018.
6. Keeping in view that the order of the learned Tribunal stood implemented and the respondent has since retired, we would not like to interfere with the Impugned Order at this stage in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also influenced by the fact that the respondent was working as a Group D employee at the post of Hot Weather Waterman.
7. We, however, direct that as we have not considered the challenge of the petitioner to the Impugned Order on merit, it shall not be cited as a precedent.
8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025/ys/k/VS