Title- Raj Kumar Yadav & Ors v The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., Ms. Chetna Yadav and Ors. v The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Decided on: October 03, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 378/2018, + W.P.(C) 412/2018
Introduction
The Parties filed writ petitions impugned by the Judgement given in CP 595/2016 and dismissal of MA 1393/2017 to reinstate the CP. Since the CP was decided without hearing the counsel for Petitioners, the Delhi HC directed the Central Administrative Tribunal that it would be proper for the Tribunal to hear the attorneys for the parties and decide the CP on its merits.
Facts of the Case
The present Judgement was given for two writ petitions, clubbed together, seeking the same relief.
The petitioners through their writs, are challenging a decision made by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 30 November 2017. The Tribunal had dismissed their application MA 1393/2017 filed in connection with CP 595/2016.
The aforementioned, original CP (Compliance Petition) was closed by the Tribunal on 21 March 2017. This closure was based on the Tribunal’s finding that the order given on 3 February 2016 for the said CP had already been adequately followed. The current challenge revolves around the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioners’ request to reinstate the CP.
Court Judgements and Analysis
The Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Romy Chacko argued that on 21 March 2017, the tribunal decided to close the MA without the presence of the petitioners’ counsel. He also contended that this decision of the Tribunal goes against the order which was given on 3 February 2016. According to Mr. Chacko, the respondents terminated the petitioners’ appointments without following the regular procedures outlined in the February 3, 2016 order. He specifically pointed to a discrepancy with paragraph 24.1 of the February 3, 2016 order.
Keeping the point that, though the Counsel for Respondents, Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, would be giving justifications for the Tribunal order given in Original CP, the Hon’ble High Court pronounced, that they are of the view that, It would be proper for the Tribunal to hear the attorneys for the parties and decide the CP on its merits since, by the contested judgment, the Tribunal rejected the CP without hearing from the petitioners and dismissed the MA that the petitioners filed asking for the restoration of the petition.
The court also emphasized that while conducting the hearing, the Tribunal shall consider the pleadings filed by the parties before the HC in this present writ petition, to come to a just conclusion.
They granted permission to the petitioners as well as to the respondents to place the same affidavits/pleadings filed in the present petition, on the record of the Tribunal by way of an affidavit within four weeks from the date of judgment.
They revived the contempt petition being CP 595/2016 in O.A. 4402/2015 on the Board of the Tribunal and ordered that the same shall be listed before the Tribunal on November 06, 2023, when the parties had to appear before the Tribunal. And accordingly disposed of both the writs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
click here to view the judgement
