GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF TRANING AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS vs RUCHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1093/2025, CM APPL. 5379/2025 & CM APPL. 5380/2025 GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF TRANING AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, ASC with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi and Ms. Kanika Tyagi, Advs. versus RUCHI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 29.01.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. We are, frankly, extremely disturbed that such a petition has even been filed before this Court. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal1 has, by order dated 14 May 2024, only directed the release of family pension and ex-gratia assistance to the widow of one Mr. Sachin Deep Singh who served the petitioners for eleven years on contractual basis as a Craft Instructor. 1 Signature Not Verified “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 1093/2025 Page 1 of 10 KALRA Signing Date:03.02.2025 13:06:06 3. The fact that he served the petitioners for eleven years is not in dispute. The Supreme Court has, in its recent decision, in Jaggo v UOI2, critically commented on the practice of keeping persons on contract or ad-hoc or casual basis for years at a stretch, without regularising them, thereby leaving the fate of their careers hanging in the proverbial balance. We may reproduce the following paragraphs from the decision in Jaggo, which emphasise this point: “15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the