Mohd. Abbas v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 04 Aug 2025 · 2025:DHC:6441-DB
Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain
W.P.(C) 11531/2025
2025:DHC:6441-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court refused to direct the Central Administrative Tribunal to expedite hearing of petitioners' cases, holding that such matters are to be decided by the Tribunal itself without judicial interference.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 11531/2025 & conn.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 (41)+ W.P.(C) 11531/2025 & CM APPL. 47177/2025, CM APPL.
47178/2025 MOHD. ABBAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinay Khinger , Ms. Roopa Nagpal, Advs.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Ms. Yeeshu Jain (ASC), Mr. Aveeraj Sharma, Ms. Priya Shukla, Advs. for R1 & R2.
Mr. Tushar Sannu (SC) along
WITH
Ms. Aqsa, Advs. for
DWB.
(43)+ W.P.(C) 11533/2025 & CM APPL. 47183/2025, CM APPL.
47184/2025 MURSALEEN ALI .....Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents DWB.
(45)+ W.P.(C) 11566/2025 & CM APPL. 47258/2025, CM APPL.
47259/2025 KHURSHEED ALAM FAROOQI .....Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents DWB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT

1. These petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) to hear and dispose of the respective O.A.(s) filed by the petitioner(s) herein.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the petitioner(s) are out of employment and, therefore, there is urgency in the O.A.(s) being heard. He further submits that the pleadings in the O.A.(s) have been completed and, in fact, on an earlier occasion, the learned Tribunal itself had allowed an expedited hearing of the O.A.(s).

3. We are afraid that, in the exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we would not like to determine the functioning of the learned Tribunal or dictate the matters it must give priority to for the purposes of hearing.

4. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner(s) is to approach the learned Tribunal itself with such a prayer, and it is for the learned Tribunal to consider the same, keeping in view the number and nature of matters pending before it. Merely because the petitioner(s) have the wherewithal to approach this Court does not mean that we must direct the learned Tribunal to accord them an expedited hearing over others who are unable to do so.

5. We, therefore, dismiss these petitions, however, reserve liberty to the petitioner(s) to approach the learned Tribunal with an appropriate application, if so advised, for seeking expedited hearing of their OAs. If such applications are filed, the learned Tribunal shall consider the same without being influenced by any observation made by us in the present petitions. The pending applications also stand disposed of as infructuous.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 4, 2025/ys/VG/DG