Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 09 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:7972-DB
Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain
W.P.(C) 13801/2025
2025:DHC:7972-DB
administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that procedural rules cannot override substantial justice and allowed additional pleadings and documents to be taken on record by the Central Administrative Tribunal despite delay.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 13801/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
W.P.(C) 13801/2025
RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, DHCLSC
WITH
Ms. Ring Baliyan, Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Advs.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC
WITH
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 56617/2025

2. This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in M.A. 1514/2025 in O.A. No. 2200/2021, titled Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.. The petitioner further prays that the additional pleadings and documents filed by him before the learned Tribunal be taken on record for consideration in the above O.A..

3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application, observing that the O.A. has been pending since 2021 and no such prayer has been made earlier by the petitioner. It has further observed that the pleadings in the O.A. are complete and the matter is to be finally decided.

4. While we would generally not interfere with such orders, at the same time, procedure being the handmaid of justice, it cannot prevail over substantial justice. In the present case, we find that some of the documents, including the order passed by the Labour Court, may have some relevance to the dispute to be adjudicated by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, in our view, the same ought to have been taken on record.

5. Accordingly, we set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.05.2025 and direct that the additional pleadings and documents filed by the petitioner be taken on record before the learned Tribunal.

6. The respondent shall be granted leave to respond to the same by filing additional pleadings/affidavit within a period of twelve weeks.

7. We make it clear that our above order shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the relevance or effect of the documents/pleadings directed to be taken on record. The same shall be considered by the learned Tribunal on their own merits.

8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/ys/k/DG