Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Mary Pratibhakujur

1. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners/GNCTD had stated that the connected writ petitions [W.P.(C) 838/2016 and 839/2016] were listed before Division Bench-II on the same date and they had been dismissed on merits. He had sought time to file copies of the said decisions in these proceedings.

2. Today, counsel for the petitioners/GNCTD states that the order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the captioned petitions has not been uploaded on the website ofthe High Court so far. In view ofthe said submission made by the counsel for the petitioners/GNCTD, the Registry was directed to place the files ofthe aforesaid writ petitions before us for perusal, which have been placed before us. W.P.(C) 9124/2018 andconnected matter Page 1of[2] 2018:DHC:8701-DB f

3. On aperusal of the order dated 13.09.2018 passed in the aforesaid petitions, it transpires that the Co-ordinate Bench has declined with the impugned order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3924/2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/GNCTD submits that tepea taken bytheGNCTD in the presentpetitions are identical to thepleas in the captioned writ petitions.

5. I„Viewofthe fact that.heCo-ordinateBenchhasalreadye.dered • WPrCi 838/2016 and 839/2016 an^ the pleas taken by the petitioners in W.P.(C) ^ turned them down by following the ratio oftwo Division Benchjudgment in the cases of 2012 see Online Delhi 5606 passed in W.P.(C) 3827/2012 deci e on 02 11 2012 and ^tlOimarChoudte in W.P.(C) 4496/2014 decided on 21.07.2017, on parity of reasons, the present petitions are also dismissed alongwith the pending applications on thesameanalogy. The impugnedjudgments dated 27.07.2016 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2481/20I[6] and dated 17.03.2017 passed mO.A. No.284/2014 respectively, are upheld.